1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6028/2010 (Khalil Ahmed Mohd. Ismail VERSUS Mohd. Zafar Ansari Abdul Hafiz Ansari) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Abhyankar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.B. Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-6. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5 , 2011 . Heard. The petitioner is the Joint Secretary of Madarsa Musalmin Rabbani Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioner had filed an application before the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41(D) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for suspension/removal of the non-applicants/respondents as trustees of the trust. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondents had committed irregularities and illegalities on the say of the non-applicant no.3/respondent no.3 Shri Mohd. Zafar Ansari, the secretary of the trust. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the respondents had not maintained the accounts of the trust properly for years together and had submitted false and bogus accounts to the Charity Commissioner at Nagpur. It was the case of the petitioner that for several years, no meeting of the general body of the trust was called and new members of the general body were also not enrolled. On the aforesaid allegations, an action was sought against the respondents 2 under Section 41(D) of the Act of 1950 and an enquiry was also sought to be ordered under Section 41(B) of the Act. The non-applicants/respondents denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner against them. The non- applicants stated in the reply that the school and the junior college had shown progress while they were in office. It was stated that the petitioner wanted to introduce and induct undesirable elements of his choice in the governing body. The respondents then stated that though the petitioner had alleged favouritism and nepotism and though several allegations of malfeasance and misfeasance were made against the respondents, the petitioner had not mentioned a single instance in regard to those allegations. The respondents sought for the dismissal of the application with heavy costs. On an appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Joint Charity Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 17.07.2010 dismissed the application with costs. The Joint Charity Commissioner observed that the petitioner had levelled several allegations against the respondents but, had not explained them in the application by giving specific instances. It appears that the allegations made in the application under Section 41(D) are of general nature and they do not specifically state instances of commission of acts of malfeasance and misfeasance by the respondents. The Joint Charity Commissioner observed that from the evidence of the petitioner, it could not be seen that there was misuse of power by the non-applicant no.3/respondent no.3, though the entire case was initially tried to be made out mainly against the non-applicant no.3. The Joint Charity Commissioner 3 observed, and rightly so that most of the oral evidence of the petitioner was not pleaded by him in the application and from the evidence on record, it was absolutely clear that the petitioner had not proved that the respondent no.3 was working authoritatively against the interest of the trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner observed that the accounts were submitted to the authorities under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the respondents and the record did not show a single notice issued to the respondents about bogus accounting or wrongful utilization of the funds. Since the school was an aided school, the Joint Charity Commissioner observed that duly checked audit reports were submitted to the Education Department and there was no reason to believe that the accounts were false or bogus. On a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Joint Charity Commissioner rightly held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent no.3 had committed the acts of malfeasance and misfeasance for a long period with the help of the other respondents. The findings and the reasons recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner for dismissing the application of the petitioner are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE