Shri Mukund Waman Thatte v. Shri Sudhir Parshuram Chitale

Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. T. D. Deshmukh, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. M. Railkar, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Ms. P. S.Carozo, AGP for Respondent No.9. P.C.:­ CORAM:  G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE    :   14th MARCH, 2012. 1 Heard   Mr.   Kumbhakoni   for   the   Petitioner,   Mr.   Railkar   for Respondent   No.1,   Mr.   Bhadbhade   for   Respondent   No.2   and   3   and   the learned AGP Ms. Cardozo for Respondent No.9. 2 By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 20th July,   2005   passed   by   the   Charity   Commissioner   (M.S.),   Mumbai   in Application No.24 of 1998 thereby dismissing the same.  That application was filed under Section 41­D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.  The litigation has a checkered history. 3 Saunsthan   Shree   Bhargavram   Parshuram   bearing   P.T.R. No.A­1 (Ratnagiri) is a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the said Act. - 3 - 202-wp-7772-2005 BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS 4 On 16th January, 1982, the State of Maharashtra declared its intention to protect the temple maintained by said Trust as the same was a protected   monument   defined   in   Maharashtra   Ancient   Monuments   and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960. 5 On   16th  March,   1983,   by   a   notification,   said   Temple   was declared as a protected monument. 6 on 3rd  May, 1984, a scheme was framed by the then District and Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, by way of decree passed in Suit No.8 of 1971, filed by the Charity Commissioner.  As per the said scheme, Trustees are  to  be   appointed  by  learned  District  Judge,  Ratnagiri,  under  Clause 9(c) of the Scheme. 7 On 26th September, 1984, learned District Judge, by its order appointed 6 trustees. 8 On 25th September, 1989, subsequently, by order, six trustees were   appointed.   Then   tenure   of   said   appointed   trustees   was   extended from time to time upto 19th November, 1995. 9 On  11th  May, 1994,  Petitioner  submitted several complaints with the learned District Judge, as the said trustees were mismanaging the affairs   of   trust.     Similar   complaints   were   filed   on   18th  July,   1994,   8th November, 1994, 28th December, 1994 and 22nd January, 1995. - 4 - 202-wp-7772-2005 10 On 11th November, 1994, State of Maharashtra denotified the temple of said Trust as a protected monument. 11 On   18th  September,   1995,   learned   District   Judge,   vide   its order appointed 7 trustees for a period 1995 to 2000, thereby continuing the appointment of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 12 On 19th July, 1996, this Court was pleased to dispose of Writ Petition bearing No.860 of 1996, giving certain directions to the learned District   Judge   to   hear   the   complaint   submitted   by   the   Petitioner   in accordance with law. 13 On 18th  February, 1997, learned District Judge conducted an enquiry and was pleased to prepare a report in the present dispute.    The Ld.   District   Judge   was   pleased   to   hold   that   the   construction   and/or renovation started and completed by the trustees was in contravention of Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960.  However, the learned District Judge was of the view that the then body of Trustees may be permitted to continue as one more chance, with necessary strict directions. 14 On 12th January, 2001, lastly, the learned District Judge, by its order appointed 7 trustees i.e. the present Respondents for period 2001 to

2006.  Petitioner again moved this Court by way of Writ Petition bearing No.355 of 1998 seeking removal of Trustees. - 5 - 202-wp-7772-2005 15 On 16th  February, 1998, this Court (Coram: M. B. Shah and R. J. Kochar JJ) was pleased to dismiss Writ Petition No.355 of 1998, and directed the Petitioner to approach appropriate Forum. 16 On 19th August, 1998, Petitioner preferred application bearing No.24 of 1998, before the learned Charity Commissioner, under Section 41­D   of   Bombay   Public   Trust   Act,   1950,   seeking   removal   of   the   said Trustees. 17 On   23rd  August,   2000,   learned   Charity   Commissioner   was pleased to reject the application preferred by the Petitioner under Section 41D   of   the   Bombay   Public   Trust   Act,   1950.   The   learned   Charity Commissioner   was   of   the   view   that   it   is   not   necessary   to   frame   any charges against the said Trustees. 18 On 5th September, 2002, this Court (Coram: D. K. Deshmukh J.)  after hearing both the sides was pleased to remand the matter back to the learned Charity Commissioner with direction to consider the same in accordance with law.  This Court was of the view that the Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, was maintainable in law in view of the fact that the Petitioner was not challenging the report of the learned District Judge, dated 18th  February,

1997. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. - 6 - 202-wp-7772-2005 SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER Mr. Kumbhakoni advanced the following submissions:­ He submitted that there  were  serious irregularities committed by 19 (i) the trustees and acts of misfeasance and malfeasance had been committed and, hence, a concrete case for taking action for removal of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Section 41­D of the said Act was made out. (ii) Mr. Kumbhakoni laid particular emphasis on the report of the then District Judge, Ratnagiri­ Shri V. G. Munshi.  Special emphasis was laid on point No.2 in the said report which relates to failure to take effective steps to get the names of the Trustees entered in the Revenue Records of the various properties of the Trust.  He relied upon the observations made by the District Court on point No.2 to the effect that no effective steps were taken to protect and preserve the properties of the Trust. (iii) He submitted that the idols were changed without the permission of the   concerned   department.   He   also   submitted   that   contrary   to   the provisions of Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960, work of repairs and renovation of the temple was carried out without the permission of the Competent Authority under the said   Act.   He,   therefore,   submitted   that   serious   charges   had   been   duly proved in the enquiry and Charity Commissioner ought to have removed Respondent   Nos.1   to   3.   He   criticized   the   Judgment   of   the   Charity Commissioner and contended that no justification has been given for not - 7 - 202-wp-7772-2005 exercising the power under Section 41­D. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT 20 On the other hand, Mr. Railkar and Mr. Bhadbhade, appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the impugned Judgment and Order of   the   Charity   Commissioner.     They   pointed   out   that   in   respect   of   the various points raised by the District Court in the report, the District Judge has   himself   not   found   the   point   serious   enough   not   to   continue   the trustees.  According to them, in fact, even after the report of the District Judge, they were appointed as Trustees which indicated that the charges of misfeasance and malfeasance in the report were not of serious nature. 21 They also pointed out that Respondent No.1 has thereafter ceased   to   be   trustee   and   Respondent   Nos.2   and   3   have   been   again appointed   as   trustees   of   trust   and   there   are   no   allegations   warranting drastic action of removal. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 22 I have considered the rival submissions.  In so far as the first charge of failure to record the names of the trustees in the properties of the   trust   is   concerned,   while   deciding   charge   No.2,   the   Charity Commissioner has held thus:­ “........ Opponents No.2 and 3, who are present trustees cannot be held   responsible   for   alleged   negligence   on   the   part   of   earlier - 8 - 202-wp-7772-2005 board of trustees.   It is an admitted that inspite of some of the observations   made   by   the   Honourable   District   Judge,   in   his report,   District   Judge   allowed   the   then   board   of   trustees   to continue   only   for   their   un­expired   period   of   tenure   and reappointed opponents No.2 and 3 as trustees by his order dated 12­1­2001. The applicant has clearly admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the allegations made in respect of the alleged   failure   to   record   name   of   the   trust   to   the   properties belonging   to   the  trust  and   about   the  maintenance   of   property registers.  Therefore, I hold that the applicant has failed to prove charge   No.2   against   opponents   No.2   and   3.   Hence,   I   answer charge No.2 in the negative.” 23 In respect of the alleged waste of trust's funds by using the funds for Vajralep to the statues of the devotees is concerned, charge No.3 had been framed.   The Charity Commissioner has elaborately   discussed the entire evidence in respect of charge No.3 and thereafter, a finding has been   recorded   that   the   said   charge   is   not   proved.     The   Charity Commissioner has recorded the following finding:­ “ ..... In the report Exhibit 75 Honourable District Judge has specifically   stated   that,   “   It   is   necessary   to   mention   that   any particular  trustee  or individual  cannot be held responsible for any such act”. 24 The Charity Commissioner has also relied on the Judgment reported in 1990 (2) BCR 702 in the case of  Vajubhai Patel v/s. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra which reads thus:­ “ .... Imputation reflecting on integrity of people have to be fortified   by   proof   of   a  high   degree  –  Even   if   proceeding   under Section   41­D   be   not   a   criminal   proceeding,   proof   required   to sustain charges therein must satisfy a higher standard than that normally required in cases governed by rule of preponderance of - 9 - 202-wp-7772-2005 probabilities.” 25 In   so   far   as   the   constructions   without   permission   of   the Government   under   the   aforesaid   Maharashtra   Ancient   Monuments, Archaeological   Sites   &   Remains   Act,   1960   is   concerned,   the   Charity Commissioner has framed charge No.4 and after A detailed discussions, the Charity Commissioner has observed thus:­ ... It is to be noted that on page No.56 Honourable District “ Judge, Ratnagiri has observed that, We   have   seen   in   above   paragraphs   the irregularities found in the working of the trust.  It is a fact that the irregularities shown above really occurred in the administration of the trust. Some irregularities pointed out above are of technical nature and can be cured by taking proper steps.   The other irregularities are of permanent nature and now cannot be rectified, and for these irregularities the trustees have to blame themselves.     Now   we   can   not   do   anything,   for   the things,   which   occurred   in   the   past   and   which   are   of permanent   nature.     However,   from   all   these   events everybody should take lesson, that he should be more careful in future, and no such mistake is repeated in future.   In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Honourable District Judge, present respondent No.2 and 3 cannot be held solely responsible for carrying out work   of   reconstruction,   renovation   of   the   temple without   obtaining   sanction   as   required   under   the provisions   of   Maharashtra   Ancient   Monuments Archaeological   Site   &   Remains   Act,   1960.   Hence,   I answer charge No.4 in the negative.” 26 The scope of the enquiry under Section 41­D will have to be considered. For taking drastic action of removal, suspension and dismissal - 10 - 202-wp-7772-2005 from the posts of the trustees, a very high decree of proof is required and the person seeking removal has to prove that the irregularities within the scope of Section 41­D (i) are proved without any manner of doubt. In the case of  Mallikarjuanappa S/o. Sidramappa Bidve & Others v/s. Joint Charity Commissioner and Others  decided by the learned Single Judge (Coram: V. R. Kingaonkar J.), it is observed in paragraphs 18 and 19 as under:­ “Para­18:­ The legal position, which may be kept at back of the mind, is that removal of a trustee is a drastic action.  The charge of   malfeasance   and/or   misfeasance   is   serious   one.       The proceedings are of quasi civil and quasi criminal nature.  Though the proceedings under Section 41D is not criminal proceeding as such,   yet,   proof   required   to   sustain   the   charges   is   of   high standard.     The   standard   of   proof   in   such   proceedings   is   some what   more   than   normally   required   in   cases   governed   by preponderance of probabilities and some what less than required in   trials   of   criminal   cases.     The   degree   of   proof   required   in criminal case is such that would prove criminal charge beyond a reasonable realm of doubt. The imputation reflecting on integrity of   trustees   have   to   be   fortified   by   proof   of   high   degree   which would be somewhere in between standard  of proof required in civil proceedings like a suit and criminal proceedings like a trial for offence of criminal breach of trust, or that of cheating.  Thus, unless the lapse on part of the trustee is proved to be actuated by dishonestly   or   active   connivance   with   other   trustees,   who   are guilty   of   misfeasance   or   malfeasance,   the   drastic   action   under Section 41­D of the BPT Act may not be warranted. Para­19:­ The expression  “misfeasance” as used in Clause (c) of Section 41­D would imply commission of breach of trust. It is more than  mere  negligence  of the trustee  to  perform   his duty. “Misfeasance” includes  breach of duty by the trustee which would result into loss to the trust  or would cause unlawful gain to such a   trustee,   charged   with   act   of   misfeasance.   Acceptance   of donations   from   students   for   giving   admission   to   first   year - 11 - 202-wp-7772-2005 Engineering course is not contemplated  under the terms of the office of the trusteeship.   It requires no mincing of words to say that ordinarily no student will volunteer to pay in excess of the prescribed fees for admission to the professional course.  It is only for compelling reasons, that the donations or capitation fees is paid by the students.  They are a needy class.  The exploitation is made by those who can fleece the easy money.” 27 It is thus clear that imputation reflecting on the integrity of the trustees have to be fortified by proof of high degree which will have to be higher than  the standard of proof required in the civil  proceedings. Unless   and   until   the   lapse   on   the   part   of   the   trustee   is   proved   to   be actuated   by   dishonesty,   a   drastic   action   under   Section   41­D   is   not warranted. In my opinion, the Charity Commissioner has considered the entire   evidence   available   on   record   and   has,   thereafter,   reached   an appropriate decision that the case for drastic action  for removal of the trustees had not been made out.  No fault can be found with the reasoning of the Charity Commissioner in the impugned order.  I entirely agree with the   view   expressed   by   the   Charity   Commissioner   that   the   errors committed   by   the   trustees   were   not   so   severe   so   as   to   warrant   their removal.  There is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same will have to be dismissed. 28 The   intention   of   the   Petitioner   cannot   be   doubted   and   the Petitioner is also a person who is fighting  for the Welfare of the trust. However, in the absence of any case for removal of the trustees, no fault - 12 - 202-wp-7772-2005 can be found with the order of the Charity Commissioner. 29 Rule discharged with no order as to costs. (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)