NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3714 of 2007 · Bombay High Court

SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 1,

2008. Heard Mr. Parsodkar for the petitioner, and Mrs. Dangre, the learned Addl. Government Pleader, for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition is directed against the order dated 13/8/2007 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, whereby Application Nos. 688/2006, 764/2006, 2172/2006 and 573/2007 filed under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, came to be rejected with the direction to the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, to appoint any 2 officer of the Education Department or Zilla Parishad, Gondia, as an Administrator the said Administrator to make appointments of Teachers in the School and College run by the Trust, with the consent of the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. It is further observed in the order that the Administrator will remain in the office till the decision on the Change Report/s is taken.

Mr. Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the Scheme of provisions of Section 41A of the Act, the Charity Commissioner cannot appoint an Administrator though there is a power under the said section vested in the Assistant Charity Commissioner to issue directions for proper administration of Trust. It is, therefore, contended that the present order whereby an Administrator came to be appointed is beyond the scope of Section 41A of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Mrs. Dangare, the learned 3 Addl. Government Pleader, has submitted that by virtue of the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Education has merely been directed to appoint an Administrator to appoint the Teachers by following due procedure applicable in this regard and, therefore, supported the impugned order. In the backdrop of the above referred facts as well as, as per the Scheme of Section 41A of the Act, the directions which are issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, cannot be construed as the directions whereby the Administrator appointed on the Trust.

On the other hand, the observations in the impugned order as well as the operative portion of the order, make itself abundantly clear that the directions are given to the Deputy Director of Education only who is required to appoint an Administrator and, therefore, it cannot be held that the power exercised by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is beyond the scope of Section 41A of the Act. In that view of the matter, 4 petition suffers from lack of merits. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RMP