2019 NearLaw (BombayHC Aurangabad) Online 3027
Bombay High Court
JUSTICE P.R.BORA
Shri Veerbhadra Sidramappa Birajdar & Ors. Vs. Shri Vishwanath Shankarappa Walande & Ors.
FIRST APPEAL NO.177 OF 2019
26th February 2019
Petitioner Counsel: Shri RR Mantri
Shri S.N. Patne
Respondent Counsel: Shri V.D. Gunale
Shri B.L. SagarKillarikar
Shri A.M. Sabnis
Act Name: Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
HeadLine : 1) Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (1950), Ss. 41-D, 41-E – Once while passing interim order Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded finding that applicants are persons having interest in affairs of trust being beneficiaries of trust it cannot take contrary view while passing final order. 2) Civil P. C. (1908), S. 11 – Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (1950), Ss. 41-A, 41-D, 41-E – Provisions u/S. 11 would apply all orders passed under Act of 1950 except order passed u/S. 41-A.
Section :
Section 41E Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
Section 41D Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
Section 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Cases Cited :
Para 3: Barkat Ali and Anr. Vs. Badri Narain (D) by Lrs., 2008 AIR (SC) 1272Para 3: Satyadhan Ghoshal Vs. Deorajin Debi, 1960 AIR (SC) 941Para 10: Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993Para 10: Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. Vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Anr., AIR 1960 SC 941
JUDGEMENT
1. Since both these appeals are arising out of the common order passed on 17th October, 2018 by Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur, I have heard the common arguments in both these appeals and I deem it appropriate to decide these appeals by a common reasoning.2. The material on record reveals that two applications were filed, one under the provision of Section 41D and another under Section 41E of The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the present respondents. The material on record further reveals that in both these applications, the appellants in both these appeals filed the applications seeking intervention in the said applications. The material on record further reveals that the then Joint Charity Commissioner, vide order passed on 2nd June, 2018, allowed the intervention of the present appellants, holding them to be the persons interested in the affairs of the Trust being the beneficiaries. The material on record further reveals that during the course of hearing of these applications, certain documents came to be placed on record and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed on 17th October, 2018. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has ultimately recorded a finding that the appellants in both the appeals cannot be held to be the persons having interest in the affairs of the subject trust and that is the reason that the application has been finally rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Aggrieved by, the present appeals are filed.3. Shri Mantri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, relying on two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court, first in the case of Barkat Ali and Anr. Vs. Badri Narain (D) by Lrs. 2008 AIR (SC) 1272 and another in the case of Satyadhan Ghoshal Vs. Deorajin Debi – 1960 AIR (SC) 941, submitted that once the Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded a finding holding the present appellants to be the persons having interest in the Trust affairs being the beneficiaries of the trust, he was estopped from recording any contrary finding. The learned counsel submitted that on this count alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that the Joint Charity Commissioner has, in fact, rejected the applications filed by the original petitioners. The learned counsel further pointed out that, however, suo motu inquiry has also been initiated against the present respondents and the same is going on. The learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances, the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner shall be set aside and the present applications be tagged with the suo motu inquiry being conducted against the present respondents and an opportunity be given to the present appellants to participate in the said inquiry.4. Shri Gunale, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, submitted that the principles of res judicata would not apply to the proceedings under the said Act and more particularly in relation to the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise, the present appellants no way can be held to be the persons having no interest in the affairs of the trust. The learned counsel referred to the definitions under the said Act and submitted that in view of the definitions as are provided in the Act, the present appellants are rightly held to be the persons interested in the affairs of the trust. The learned counsel, in the circumstances, submitted for rejecting the appeals and to confirm the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.5. Shri Sabnis, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.14 to 18, in addition to the submissions made by Shri Gunale, submitted that the very object behind incorporating the provisions under Sections 41D and 41E of the Act, are required to be taken into account. The learned counsel read out the said provisions and submitted that considering the said provisions, there was no reason for the Joint Charity Commissioner to allow the present appellants to participate in the inquiry and in the circumstances, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly rejected their applications. The learned counsel further submitted that the orders, which are impugned in the present appeals cannot be held to the judicial orders so as to make the provision under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable the said order. On this count, the learned counsel submitted for dismissal of the appeals.6. Shri SagarKillarikar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and submitted for setting aside the impugned order.7. I have given due considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the impugned judgment and the other material on placed on record. I deem it appropriate to reproduce herein below paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner on 2nd June, 2018. The said paragraphs were read out by learned counsel Shri Sagar Killarikar to point out that the Joint Charity Commissioner, in many words, has held the present appellants to be the persons interested in the affairs of the trust being the beneficiaries. The paras 5 and 6 of the said order, read as under, “5 egkjk"Vª lkoZtfud fo'oLr O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e] 1950 e/; s ykHkkFkhZph O;k[;k [kkyhyizek.ks fo'kn dj.;kr vkyh vkgs& ^^ ykHkkFkhZ ;kpk vFkZ ;k vf/kfu;ekuqlkj dsy sY;k fo'oLFkO;oLFkk foys[kke/; s fdaok ;kstuse/; s vkf.k fo'oLFkO;oLFksP;k ?kVuse/; s fo'kn dsy sY;k fo'oLFkO;oLFksP;k mn~nh"Vkuqlkj dks.krsgh ykHk ?ks.;kl gDdnkj vlysyh dks.krhgh O;Drh vlk vkgs vkf.k R;ke/; s brj O;Drhapk lekos'k gks.kkj ukgh-^^ izLrqr izdj.kkrhy =;LFk i{kdkj gs U;kl pkyfor vlysY;k 'kkGse/; s f'k{k.k ?ksr gksr s o R;kaph eqy s o brj dqVq afc; lnj U;klkP;k 'kkGse/; s f'k{k.k ?ksowu R;kpk YkkHk ?ksr vlY;keqGs lnj O;k[; suqlkj izLrqr =;LFk O;Drh U;klkps ykHkkFkhZ ;k ukR;kus fgr laca/kh O;Drh Bjrkr vkf.k R;keqGs R;kauk izLrqr izdj.kke/; s vtZnkj Eg.kwu lekfo"V dj.;klkBh eyk dks.krhgh vMp.k fnlwu ; sr ukgh- rlsp R;kl ewG vtZnkj o xSjvtZnkj ;kauh ns[khy ys[kh fojks/k n'kZfoysyk ukgh6- izLrqr izdj.kkpk vafrer% U;k;fu.kZ; dj.;kdfjrk ;k U;klk'kh laca/khr o loZ fo'oLrkaP;k d`r;kckcrpk l[kksy iqjkok ;k izkf/kdj.kklek sj ; s.ks vko';d vkgs- U;klkp s fgr laca/kh ;k ukR;kus izLrqr =;LFk i{kdkjkauk ;k izdj.kke/; s vtZnkj Eg.kwu lekfo"V dsY;kl vtZnkj vFkok xSjvtZnkj ;kap s dks.krsgh uqdlku gks.kkj ulwu myV izLrqr izdj.kke/; s U;k;nkukl enrp gks.kkj vkgs- rl sp R;kauk ;k izdj.kkr lekfo"V dsY;keqG s U;klkrhy xSjd`R;kaoj izdk'k Vkd.;kdfjrk lnj =;LFk i{kdkjkaph Hkwfedk egRokph B: 'kdrs- dks.krhgh ,[kknh =;LFk O;Drh tj U;kl fgrkdfjrk ;k izkf/kdj.kklek sj gtj jkg wu csdk;ns'khj d`R; s m?kM dj.;kpk iz;Ru djhr vlys rj r'kk O;Drhl la/kh ns.ks U;klkP;k fgrkdfjrk xjtsps vl wu R;keqGs lkoZtfud fgr lk/ky s tk.kkj vkg s- gs izkf/kdj.k =;LFk i{kdkjkP;k Hkwehdsuqlkj R;kauk vtZnkj fdaok xSjvtZnkj Eg.kwu izdj.kke/; s lekfo"V d# 'kdrs- R;keqG s izLrqr =;LFk i{kdkjkauk ;k izdj.kke/; s vtZnkj Eg.kwu lekfo"V dsY;kl mHk; i{kkauk dks.krhgh gkuh iksgk sp.kkj ulwu myVi{kh lnjps izdj.k xq.knks"kkoj vafrer% fudkyh dk<.;kl enr gks.kkj vkgsrl sp xSjvtZnkjkaP;k Eg.k.;kuqlkj izLrqr =;LFk i{kdkjkauk Lora= vtZ dj.;kph eqHkk vkgs- ijarq =;LFk i{kdkjkauh e wG vtZnkjkauh ekaMysY;k dslyk nqtksjk fnyk vlwu R;kauh ns[khy ;kp dkj.kkLro izLrqr izdj.kke/; s izos'k ekfxryk vlY;keqG s izdj.kkaph l a[;k ok
Decision : Appeal allowed.