Gujarat High Court
Firoz Rustomji Bharda vs State Of
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
FIROZ RUSTOMJI BHARDA....Appellant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT C/LPA/865/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 865 of 2013 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9576 of 2013 ======================================================================= FIROZ RUSTOMJI BHARDA....Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7....Respondent(s) ======================================================================= Appearance: MR PC KAVINA, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR PINAKIN B RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ======================================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Date : 09/07/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.P.C.Kavina with learned Advocate Mr.Pinakin B.Raval for the appellant original petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant moves draft amendment and seeks permission to implead the elected Trustees as party respondents, except those who are already impleaded as party respondents.
The amendment is allowed and shall be carried out during the course of the day.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to the facts of the case. The glaring fact is that the Trust was created in the year 1931. It is the case of the appellant that for last 27 years, only three persons are acting as Trustees and no election is held.
3.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that despite repeated applications filed before the learned Charity Commissioner, no action is taken in the matter and lastly, the Trustees in-charge of the affairs of the Trust declared election by hand-bill and then declared six persons as elected Trustees.
3.2 Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant also submitted that it is interesting to note that out of these six Trustees, though it is compulsory under the deed of Trust that the persons should be residing in Malesar area, two persons are the persons who are not residing in Malesar area. Not only that, so far as first three persons are concerned, No.3 is the son of No.1 and No.2 is nephew of No.1. So the affairs of the Trust remained to be a family affair and are not managed in a manner required under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
4. The matter requires consideration.
ADMIT.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) SHITOLE Page 3 of 3