Janata Shikshan Sanstha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr.S.M.Oak i/b Mr.R.S.Khadapkar for the petitioners. Mr.V.B.Tapkir for respondent no.4. Mr.R.M.Patne A.G.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 29TH JULY, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the orders dated 29.4.2009 and 11.5.2009 passed by the Charity Commissioner in Misc. Application No.4 of 2009 and on the interim application filed therein. The Misc. application was filed under section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (for short “BPT Act”) seeking permission to manage affairs of the Trust till the new Governing body takes over after elections. In the interim application they prayed for permission to fill-in the post of Principal of C.K.Goyal college which is vacant since long. Both these applications came to be rejected in view of the orders passed by this court in the appeal bearing First Appeal No.629 of 2009 and civil application No.179 of 2009 so also the order under section 41-D of the BPT Act. 2

Mr.Oak, learned counsel for the petitioners pressed this petition only for seeking permission to the petitioners to fill-in the post of principal of C.K.Goyal college.

There is no dispute that the proceeding under section 41-D were initiated against the Managing Committee and it was allowed vide order dated 6.2.2009 by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune. Accordingly, all the trustees i.e. petitioner Nos.2 to 7 were removed on account of willful disobedience of the orders as contemplated by section 41-D(1)(d) of the Bombay Public Trust Act (for short “the Act”). It further appears that an appeal was filed in this court challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge dated

23.1.2009 and the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 11.11.2008. By the order dated 11.11.2008 the change report was rejected and the appeal filed there against was dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2009. This court, while disposing of First Appeal No.179 of 2009 granted order of status quo as regards the persons who were running the affairs of the trust and it was continued only till 27.4.2009. The parties were also directed to approach the appropriate forum for further orders as to who should perform and take care of the trust. In civil application No.629 of 2009 this court allowed the petitioner to initiate the selection process for filling in the post of 3 principal, but made it clear that no appointment shall be made by the petitioners. After these orders, admittedly, the election process for electing new managing committee has been set in motion by the Joint Charity Commissioner and it should get over within next 2-3 months. It is against this backdrop the petitioners filed application No.4 of 2009 and the interim application seeking the reliefs as aforementioned. These applications were rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioners had given an undertaking to the Charity Commissioner that they shall not take any major policy decision such as appointments etc. as the members of the managing committee.

Mr.Oak, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order passed by the division bench of this court dated 3rd December, 2008 and submitted that they are making appointment of Principal in pursuance of the directions issued by the University. The general directions were issued by the Division Bench in suo motu P.I.L. It appears that the university vide its letter dated 5.5.2009 issued directions to the petitioner- institution in pursuance of the order passed by the division bench in writ petition No.2212 of 2006 vide order dated 3rd December, 2008. He further submitted that the selection committee was constituted by the university which conducted the interviews and an appointment would be made only on the 4 recommendation made by the university. There is no dispute that two members of the managing committee, which had been removed in exercise of the powers under section 41-D of the Act, were also the members of the selection committee, and in view thereof, prima facie, I am of the view that the constitution of the selection committee itself was illegal. In the circumstances permission to appoint a person, selected as principal by such committee, has rightly been rejected by the impugned orders. In my opinion, the institute can certainly wait till the elections get over and the new managing committee takes over. Moreover, presently, the senior most teacher has been holding the charge of Principal since 29.2.2008. He can continue to hold the charge till the post of principal is filled in by the new managing committee after following the due procedure. In the circumstances this petition fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)