Kailas v. Dharma

3. Smt. Dhanibai Uttam Gavit, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Household, Pinjarzadi, Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule.

4. Sau. Lata Gokuldas Kokani, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Household, Pinjarzadi, Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule.

5. Sau. Mangala Ramdas Suryawanshi, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Maharashtra Housing Board, Yerwada, M-40, Room No. 1806, Pune-6, District : Pune. (2)

6. Gokuldas Kalu Kokani, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, At Village Dahivel, Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule.

7. Dilip Lotan Gangurde, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Village Ghogalpada, Taluka & District : Nandurbar.

8. Bharat Gokulrao Gavit, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Village Pinjarzadi, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule.

9. Sau. Vidyabai Magan Bahiram, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. at Village Pinjarzadi, Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule.

10. Shekar s/o. Kailas Gavit, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. at Village Pinjarzadi, Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule.

11. Sau. Lilabai Kailas Gavit, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Village Pinjarzadi, Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule. .. Petitioners. (3) versus

1. Dharma s/o. Lokhandya Gavit, Age : 77 years, Occupation : Nil, Pinjarzadi, Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule.

2. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule Region, Dhule. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. (4)

By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31st August 2009, passed by respondent no.2 i.e. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule Region, Dhule, in Inquiry No. 80/2009, thereby allowing the application filed by the present respondent no.1 seeking directions regarding the management and financial affairs of the Trust.

From the perusal of the order, it is clear that on the date on which the matter was decided by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, there was an application pending before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, requesting for transfer of the proceedings from the file of the present Presiding Officer to some other Presiding Officer. It also not in dispute, that the learned Presiding Officer was to retire on the date on which he has passed the impugned order. Serious allegations have been made against the said Presiding Officer.

Though the learned Counsel for the parties have also addressed on the scope of provisions of Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the order being beyond the scope, I am not inclined to go into that aspect of the matter, as it may prejudice rights of either of the parties. I find that the interest of justice would be subserved by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for decision afresh.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st August 2009, passed by (5) respondent no.2 i.e. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule Region, Dhule, in Inquiry No. 80/2009, is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule Region, Dhule, for deciding the application filed by the respondent no.1, on its own merits, within a period of three months from today.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7632