Mukind Nandu Chavan v. The Jt. Charity Commissioner & others
Case Details
- 1 - wp10121.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10121 OF 2024 Mukinda @ Mukind Nandu Chavan .. Petitioner versus The Jt. Charity Commissioner & others .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 10139 OF 2024 Mukinda @ Mukind Nandu Chavan .. Petitioner versus The Jt. Charity Commissioner & others .. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M. B. Kolpe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. A. S. Mantri, AGP for the State. Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. S. R. Sapkal along with Mr. Onkar Waghule, Mr. A. H. Narke and Mr. Y. A. Jadhav, Advocates for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 9th DECEMBER, 2024. ORDER : 1. These Petitions take exception to the orders passed by Joint Charity Commissioner in appeals under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act whereby the findings recorded in - 2 - wp10121.24.odt Inquiry Nos. 3531/2017 and 254/2018 with regard to the legality of meeting dated 14.02.2012 are reversed. 2. Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 are real brothers. They claim themselves to be the founder members of Banjara Shikshan Prasarak mandal, Balsur, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Admittedly, during the period from 1993-2014 Petitioner was President and Respondent No. 3 was Secretary of the said trust. There occurred dispute beteen them. Respondent No. 3 filed change reports bearing Nos. 290-298/2015 for the period from 1993-2014. These change reports were rejected by Assistant Charity Commissioner (for short ‘ACC’). These orders, however, were reversed in Revision Application Nos. 23-29/2021 and the change reports came to be allowed. Said ordes are subject matter of Writ Petition No. 12516/2023 along with other petitions. 3. It is further case of Petitioner that he had filed change report bearing No. 3531/2017 whereas Respondent No. 3 filed change report bearing No.254/2018. Both change reports were rejected by ACC by order dated 13.02.2024. Respondent No. 3 preferred appeal against said orders by challenging the findings - 3 - wp10121.24.odt recorded in respect of meeting dated 14.02.2012. Those appeals came to be allowed by holding that the meeting dated 14.02.2012 is illegal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority under Section 70 of the Act, these Petitions. 4. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that the Joint Charity Commissioner (for short ‘JCC’) has committed erorr in accepting order passed in revision applications holding that there are 20 valid members of the trust. It is his submission that said orders are challenged by filing separate petitions which are considered for decision together with the present Petition. It is his submission that there is no evidence to show as to who are the 20 valid members. He sought to draw attention of the Court to the names of the said persons which, according to him, indicate that there are names of same persons recorded twice so also there are other discrepancies in the said list and therefore, they cannot be accepted as members of the trust for the purpose of subsequent election. He, however, admits that if the orders passed by JCC in revision are upheld then nothing would survive in these Petitions. - 4 - wp10121.24.odt 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 supported the impugned order. It is his contention that no error is committed by the JCC in causing interference in the findings recorded by ACC with regard to the said meeting. He has drawn attention of the Court to the evidence on record which indicates that no meeting was held on 14.02.2012 and infact, the said document is created for the purpose of filing of change report. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that change reports filed by Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 3 came to be rejected by ACC. However, ACC recorded findings that the members shown in the meeting of 14.02.2012 are valid members. This finding was challenged before JCC by filing appeal. In order to decide as to whether the order impugned is correct or otherwise, it would be necessary to consider the evidence which was addued before the ACC. 7. Petitioner examined himself at Exhibit 44. Thought he claims in the examination-in-chief that on 14.-02.2012 members were enrolled, during cross-examination, he have following admissions :- - 5 - wp10121.24.odt “vkrk eyk fn- 07-02-2012 uksVhl o fn- 14-02-2012 jksthph lHksps bfro`Rrkar ewG jsdkWMZ nk[kfoys- fn- 07-02-2012 jksthP;k uksVhlhl fu'kk.kh dz- 51 ns.;kr ;srs o fn- 14-02-2012 jksthP;k bfro`Rrkarkl fu'kk.kh dz- 52 ns.;kr ;srs- R;kojhy bLrk{kj dks.kkph vkgs gs eyk vkBor ukgh- lnjps bLrk{kj ek>s vkgs fdaok ukgh gs eyk vkt jksth vkBor ukgh- iz'u %& lnj uksVhl o lHksP;k bfro`Rrkarkojhy xqykcnkl ;kaps ukgh \ mRrj %& lnj uksVhl o Bjkokojhy gLrk{kj gs xqykcnkl ;kapsp vkgs- vkrk eyk fn- 07-02-2012 uksVhl o fn- 14-02-2012 jksthph lHksps bfro`Rrkarkojhy xqykcnkl ;kaps Lok{kjh nk[kfoys- lk{khnkj lkaxrks dh] lnjph Lok{kjh gh xqykcnkl ;kaphp vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh] lnj nksUgh Lok{kµ;k xqykcnkl ;kaps vkgsr vls eh [kksVs lkaxrks- lnjps jsdkWMZ 2012 iklwups vlwu rs eh cuoysys vkgsr- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] lnjps jsdkWMZ g eh cny vtZ nk[ky djrsosGh r;kj dsys vkgs- vkrk eyk vkVhZdy , nk[kfo.;kr vkys- fn- 07-02-2012 jksthph uksVhl uanj ,dw.k 8 ikBiksV ikus fjdkes@dksjs vkgs- rs dksjs dk Bso.;kr vkys gs eyk vkt jksth lkaxrk ;sr ukgh- rlsp vkrk eyk vkVhZdy ch nk[kfo.;kr vkys- fn- 14-02-2012 jksthP;k bfro`Rrkaruarj ,dw.k 6 ikBiksV ikus fjdkes@dksjs vkgs- rs dksjs dk Bso.;kr vkys gs eyk vkt jksth lkaxrk ;sr ukgh- eyk fn- 14-02- 2012 jksthph d'kk dfjrk lHkk cksyo.;kr vkyh gksrh gs lkaxrk ;sr ukgh- lk{khnkj Lorkgwu lkaxrkr dh] R;kckcr xqykcnkl ;klauk ekfgrh vkgs- 2012 e/;s laLFksps lfpo xqykcnkl pOgk.k gs gksrs- 2012 iwohZ laLFksps jsdkWMZ xqykcnkl pOgk.k ;kaP;k rkC;kr gksrs- R;kuarj rs jsdkWMZ eqdhan uanw pogk.k ;kaP;kdMs v/;{k Eg.kwu vkys- lnjps jsdkWMS xqykcnkl pOgk.k ;kauh eyk fnysys ulwu vkeps vkEgh r;kj dsys vkgs- eh ek÷;k 'kiFki=kke/;s 20 ufou O;Drhauk lHkkln dsY;kps uewn dsys vkgs R;kps ewG vtZ izLrwr cny vtkZlkscr nk[ky dsys fdaok ;kckcr eyk lkaxrk ;sr ukgh- vls dks.kkpsp vtZ ek÷;kdMs vkysys ukghr ;kckcr eyk vkBor ukgh- 8. The above cross-examination and admission given by Petitioner himself more than sufficiently show that the record sought - 6 - wp10121.24.odt to be produced before ACC in respect of alleged meeting of 14.02.2012 is a created document. Once such finding is recorded, the question of accepting the members allegedly enrolled in the said meeting does not arise. Moreover, there is no other/independent evidence to show that persons mentioned in the minutes of meeting of 14.02.2012 were enrolled as members of the trust. On the other hand, JCC has recorded finding about admission of Petitioner herein about existence of 20 members. The said finding recorded by JCC is upheld by this Court while passing judgment in Writ Petition No. 12516/2023 along with other petitions. As such, there is no substance in both the Petitions. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances and on the basis of evidence of Petitioner himself, findings recorded by JCC are not perverse to cause any interference therein in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence, both the Petitions stand dismissed. dyb ( R. M. JOSHI) Judge