AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5663 of 2007 · Bombay High Court

Trust Act, 1950, the petitioners had given up first four prayers and had merely prayed for permitting the petitioners to administer the trust till the change report No.19/2004 was decided as the petitioners were the recorded trustees of the trust. By the impugned judgment

27.08.2007, application filed by the petitioner was rejected. The Executive Committee of the Trust was of nine members. At the relevant time when the application under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was made by the petitioners, only 2 four members of the last recorded managing committee were alive. The Executive Committee was formed for three years on 16.11.2003 and its period expired on 16.11.2006. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were expecting fresh election to the managing committee of the society. The petitioners, however, learnt that a meeting of the General Body of the trust was called on 16.11.2003 and the respondent, one of the members on the earlier body, was elected. Other eight members of the Managing Committee were also elected by the election held on

16.11.2003. According to the petitioners, the election held on 16.11.2003 was not legal and valid. The respondent no.1 had filed a change report pursuance of the elections held on 16.11.2003 and change report enquiry No.19/2004 was pending in that regard. It is in this background that petitioner filed an application under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 seeking a direction from the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur to permit the petitioners or the recorded trustees of Schedule 1 to administer the trust during pendency change report enquiry proceedings. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2007 and I have also considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners, by relying on an unreported judgment of this Court in First Appeal 3 No.354/1998 that only a body whose names are recorded in the register of trust can manage the affairs of the trust and not a body which might have been elected or constituted and whose names are yet to be entered in the register. The counsel the respondent no.1, however, relied on the decision reported in 2002(3) BCR 161 and 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 589 in rebuttel. It is not necessary to consider the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions while considering the aspect of correctness of judgment dated

27.08.2007, in view of the existence of peculiar facts in this case. It is rightly observed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the judgment dated

27.08.2007 that out of the nine members of the Executive Committee, only four were alive at the time of filing of the application under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Out of the four members who were in existence, three were on the side of the petitioners and the respondent no.1 was in the rival group and was also elected in pursuance of the elections held on 16.11.2003. It appears from the trust deed that the 'quorum' of the Executive Committee was five. The Assistant Charity Commissioner rightly observed that the last recorded body was permitted to administer the trust, there could have been no quorum for the meeting of the Executive Committee. Five members out of the nine members of the Executive Committee, had died 4 and one of the members was on the other side. It is in this background that the Assistant Charity Commissioner held that the application filed by the petitioners was liable to be rejected, specially when the only elected body had taken charge and was managing the affairs of the trust. No fault can be found with the reasons recorded by the Assistant Charity Commissioner while rejecting the prayer made in an application under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE