Bombay High Court
Shri. Hemant Wasudeorao Kalmegh vs Adv. Arun Bhimrao Shelke And Others on 31 July, 2017
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016
with
Second Appeal No. 27 of 2016
with
Second Appeal No. 111 of 2016
with
Second Appeal No. 112 of 2016
A. Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 :
1. Adv. Arun son of Bhimrao
Shelke,
President, Shivaji Education
Society, aged about 67 years,
resident of Rizvee Plot
Sundarlar Chowk,
Camp, Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
2. Mahadeorao son of Gulabrao
Bhuibhar,
Vice-President, Shivaji Education
Society, aged about 79 years,
resident of Akola,
Tq. & Distt. Akola.
3. Vasantrao Vishwasrao
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
2
Charjan,
....Deleted as per Court's
order dated 5th Feb.,2016.
4. Dr. Suresh son of Bhaurao
Thakre,
Vice-President, Shivaji Education
Society, aged about 66 years,
resident of Paratwada,
Tq. Achalpur,
Distt. Amravati.
5. Harihar son of Bapurao Thakre,
Treasurer, Shivaji Education
Society, aged about 67 years,
resident of Deep Nagar No.1,
Dastur Nagar Road,
Tq. & Ditt. Amravati.
6. Jagannath son of Shrawanji
Wankhede,
Executive Member, Shivaji Education
Society, aged about years,
resident of Mangruli Peth,
Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati.
7. Nareshchandra son of Punjabrao
Thakre,
Executive Member, Shivaji Education
Society, aged about 60 years,
resident of Haturna,
Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati.
8. Adv. Gajanan son of Keshaorao
Pundkar,
Executive Member,
aged about 55 years,
resident of Asegaon Bz.,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati. ..... Appellants.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
3
Versus
1. Adv. Pradeep son of Prabhakarrao
Mahalle,
aged about 60 years,
occupation - Advocate
[Representative of Bhikusa
Yamasa Kshartiya Company
Ltd., Sinenr, Distt. Nashik],
resident of "Vrundavan",
Rukhmini Nagar,
Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
2. Shri Dilip son of Bhagwantrao Ingole,
aged about - major,
occupation - business,
resident of Ambapeth,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
3. Shri Anant @ Rajabhau son of
Ramkrishna Deshmukh,
aged about 63 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Vivekanand Colony,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
4. Shri Hemant son of Wasudeo
Kalmegh,
aged about 43 years,
occupation Private,
resident of Swargiya Dadasaheb
Kalmegh Smruti Dental College
& Hospital Premises,
Wanadongri Road, Hingana,
Distt. Nagpur
[Nominee of Kale Foundation Trust].
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
4
5. Shri Ashok son of Mahadeorao
Gawande,
aged about 63 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of at Post Daryapur,
Tq. Daryapur, Distt. Amravati.
6. Shri Devidas son of Mahadeorao
Pande,
aged about 81 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Vijay Colony,
Rukhmini Nagar,
Amravati.
7. Shri Shankarrao son of Anandrao
Deshmukh
aged about 82 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Gadge Nagar,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
8. Adv. Shri Narayan A. Tawari,
Election Officer,
resident of Sharda Nagar,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
9. Adv. Shri Pradeep son of Bhaurao
Manjare,
aged about 62 years,
Asstt. Election Officer,
resident of 10,
Shriram Nagar, near
ISCON Temple, Rathi Nagar area,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
10. The Secretary,
Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Shivaji Nagar,
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
5
Amravati.
11. Adv. Shri Mahadorao son of
Kashirao Deshmukh
[Executive Member],
aged about 70 years,
resident of Shri Vikas Colony,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
12. Joint Charity Commissioner,
Amravati, Shiv Tekadi Road,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
13. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Amravati. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. C. S. Kaptan, Senior Adv., with Mr. R. S. Kalangiwale, Adv.,
for appellants.
Mr. R. L. Khapre, Adv., for respondent no.1.
Mr. Kuldeep Mahalle, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. S. V. Manohar, Senior Adv., with Mr. A. Naik & H. Chitale,
Advs., for respondent no.4.
Mr. G.R. Sadar, Adv., for respondent no.11.
Mr. S. Bissa, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 12 and 14.
Mr. P. C. Madholkkar, Adv., for intervener.
*****
B. Second Appeal No. 27 of 2016 :
Vinayak Govindrao Bhamburkar,
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
6
[Reporting Trustee],
Secretary, Shri Shivaji Education
Society, Shivaji Nagar,
Amravati. ..... Appellant.
Versus
1. The Charity Commissioner,
Dharmadaya Ayukt Bhavan,
83, Dr Annie Besant Road,
Third Floor, Worli Naka,
Mumbai-400 018.
2. The Joint Charity Commissioner,
Amravati.
3. The Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Amravati,
Respondent nos. 2 and 3,
Office of Mhada Building,
Tope Nagar, Amravati.
4. Adv. Shri Pradeep son of Prabhakarrao
Mahalle,
aged about 60 years,
occupation - Advocate
[Representative of Bhikusa
Yamasa Kshartiya Company
Ltd., Sinenr, Distt. Nashik],
resident of "Vrundavan",
Rukhmini Nagar,
Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
5. Shri Dilip son of Bhagwantrao Ingole,
aged about 62 years,
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
7
occupation - business [former Vice-
President],
resident of Ambapeth, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
6. Shri Anant @ Rajabhau son of
Ramkrushna Deshmukh,
aged about 63 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Vivekanand Colony,
Amravati
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
7. Shri Hemant son of Wasudeo
Kalmegh,
aged about 43 years,
occupation Private,
resident of Swargiya Dadasaheb
Kalmegh Smruti Dental College
& Hospital Premises,
Wanadongri Road, Hingana,
Distt. Nagpur
[Nominee of Kale Foundation Trust].
8. Shri Ashok son of Mahadeorao
Gawande,
aged about 63 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of at Post, Tq. Daryapur,
Distt. Amravati,
presently residing at Bappu
Colony, Dastur Nagar Road,
Amravati.
9. Shri Devidas son of Mahadeorao
Pande,
aged about 81 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Vijay Colony,
Rukhmini Nagar,
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
8
Amravati Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
10. Shri Shankarrao son of Anandrao
Deshmukh
aged about 82 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Gadge Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
11. Adv. Shri Narayan A. Tawari,
Election Officer,
aged 67 years,
resident of Sharda Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
12. Adv. Shri Pradeep son of Baburao
Manjare,
aged about 62 years,
Asstt. Election Officer,
resident of 10,
Shriram Nagar, near
ISCON Temple, Rathi Nagar area,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
13. Adv. Shri Arun Bhimrao Shelke,
[President],
aged about 70 years,
resident of Rizvee Plot,
Sundarlal Chowk,
Camp, Amravati.
14. Shri Mahadorao Gulabrao Bhuibhar
[Vice-President],
aged about 67 years,
resident of Jawahar Nagar,
Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
15. Shri Vasnatrao Vishwasrao Charjan
.....Deleted as per Court's order
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
9
dated 3rd Feb., 2016.
16. Dr. Suresh Bhaurao Thakre
[Vice-President],
aged about 65 years,
resident of in front of PWD Office,
Paratwada, Tq. Achalpur,
Distt. Amravati.
17. Shri Harihar Bapurao Thakre
[Treasurer],
aged about 64 years,
resident of Deep Nagar No.1,
Dastur Nagar Road,
Amravati.
18. Shri Jagannath Shrawanji Wankhade
[Exe. Member],
aged about 63 years,
resident of Mangruli Peth,
Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati.
19. Shri Nareshchandra Panjabrao Thakre,
[Exe. Member],
aged about 63 years,
resident of Haturna, Tq. Warud,
Distt. Amravati.
20. Adv. Shri Gajanan Keshaorao Pundkar
[Exe. Member],
aged about 58 years,
resident of Asegaon Bz. Tq. Akot,
Distt. Akola.
21. Adv. Shri Madhaorao Kashirao
Deshmukh,
aged about 70 years,
[Ex. Member], resident of
Shri Vikas Colony, near Shri Vivekanand
Colony, Amravati,
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
10
Tq. & Distt. Amravati. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. A. J. Kadu, Adv., for appellant.
Mr. S. Bissa, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. R. L. Khapre, Adv., for respondent no.4.
Mr. Kuldeep Mahalle, Adv., for respondent nos. 5 and 6.
Mr. S. V. Manohar, Sr. Adv., with Mr. A. Naik, Adv., for respondent
no.7.
Mr. G.R. Sadar, Adv., for respondent no.21.
Mr. P. C. Madholkkar, Adv., for intervener.
*****
C. Second Appeal No. 111 of 2016 :
Hemant Wasudeorao Kalmegh,
aged 47 years,
occupation - business,
resident of Smruti Dental College
& Hospital Premises,
Wanadongari, Tq. Hingna,
Distt. Nagpur. ..... Appellant.
Versus
1. Shri Vinayak Govindrao Bhambhurkar,
aged about 65 years,
occupation Retired Principal
& Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
11
Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Shivaji Nagar, Amravati,
Distt. Amravati.
2. Adv. Shri Pradeep Prabhakarrao
Mahalle,
aged about 59 years,
occupation - Advocate
resident of "Vrundavan",
Rukhmini Nagar,
Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
3. Shri Dilip son of Bhagwantrao Ingole,
aged about 58 years,
occupation - business,
resident of Ambapeth, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
4. Shri Anant @ Rajabhau son of
Ramkrushna Deshmukh,
aged about 58 years,
occupation - business,
resident of Vivekanand Colony,
Amravati
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
5. Shri Ashok Mahadeorao
Gawande,
aged about 60 years,
occupation - Business,
resident of Daryapur,
Distt. Amravati.
6. Shri Devidas son of Mahadeorao
Pande,
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Vijay Colony,
Rukhmini Nagar,
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
12
Amravati Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
7. Shri Shankarrao son of Anandrao
Deshmukh,
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Gadge Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
8. Adv. Shri Narayan A. Tawari,
aged about 62 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Sharda Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
9. Adv. Shri Pradeep son of Bhaurao
Manjare,
aged about 61 years,
occupatiopn - Advocate,
resident of Shriram Nagar, near
ISCON Temple, Rathi Nagar area, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
10. Adv. Shri Arun Bhimrao Shelke,
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Rizvee Plot,
Sundarlal Chowk,
Camp, Amravati.
11. Shri Mahadorao Gulabrao Bhuibhar,
aged about 62 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Jawahar Nagar,Gokul Colony,
Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
12. Shri Vasnatrao Vishwasrao Charjan
.....Deleted as per Court's order
dated 3rd Feb., 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
13
13. Dr. Suresh Bhaurao Thakre
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Medical Practitioner,
resident of Paratwada,
Distt. Amravati.
14. Shri Harihar Bapurao Thakare
aged about 68 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Deep Nagar No.1,
Dastur Nagar Road,
Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
15. Shri Jagannath Shrawanji Wankhede
aged about 66 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Mangrulipeth,
Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati.
16. Shri Nareshchandra Panjabrao Thakre,
aged about 63 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Haturna, Tq. Warud,
Distt. Amravati.
17. Adv. Shri Gajanan Keshaorao Pundkar
aged about 55 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Asegaon Bazar. Tq. Akot,
Distt. Akola.
18. Adv. Shri Madhaorao Kashirao
Deshmukh,
aged about 62 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Shri Vikas Colony,
near Shri Vivekanand
Colony, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati. ..... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
14
*****
Mr. A. P. Thakre, Adv., for appellant.
Mr. A. J. Kadu, Adv., for respondent no.1.
Mr. G.R. Sadar, Adv., for respondent no.18.
*****
D. Second Appeal No. 112 of 2016 :
Hemant Wasudeorao Kalmegh,
aged 47 years,
occupation - business,
resident of Smruti Dental College
& Hospital Premises,
Wanadongari, Tq. Hingna,
Distt. Nagpur. ..... Appellant.
Versus
1. Adv. Arun Bhimrao Shelke,
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Rizvee Plot,
Sunderlal Chowk, Camp,
Amravati.
2. Mahadeorao Gulabrao Bhuibhar,
aged about 62 years,
occupation - Agriculture,
resident of Jawahar Nagar,
Gokul Colony, Akola,
Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
15
3. Shri Vasnatrao Vishwasrao Charjan
.....Deleted as per Court's order
dated 20th Oct., 2016.
4. Dr. Suresh Bhaurao Thakre
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Medical Practitioner,
resident of Achalpur,
Tq. Achalpur,
Distt. Amravati.
5. Shri Harihar Baburao Thakare,
aged about 68 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Deep Nagar No.1,
Dastur Nagar Road,
Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
6. Shri Jagannath Shrawanji Wankhede
aged about 66 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Mangrulipeth,
Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati.
7. Adv. Shri Gajanan Keshaorao Pundkar
aged about 55 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Asegaon Bazar. Tq. Akot,
Distt. Akola.
8. Shri Vinayak Govindrao Bhambukar,
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Retired,
Shivaji Education Society,
Shivaji Nagar, Amravati,
Distt. Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
16
9. Adv. Pradip Prabhakarrao Mahalle,
aged about 59 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Vrundawan, Rukhmini Nagar,
Amravati.
10. Shri Dilip son of Bhagwanrao Ingole,
aged about 58 years,
occupation - business,
resident of Ambapeth, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
11. Shri Anant @ Rajabhau son of
Ramkrushna Deshmukh,
aged about 58 years,
occupation - business,
resident of Vivekanand Colony,
Amravati
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
12. Shri Ashok Mahadeorao
Gawande,
aged about 60 years,
occupation - Business,
resident of Rajapeth, Amravati,
Distt. Amravati.
13. Shri Devidas son of Mahadeorao
Pande,
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Vijay Colony,
Rukhmini Nagar,
Amravati Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
14. Shri Shankarrao son of Anandrao
Deshmukh,
aged about 65 years,
occupation - Retired,
resident of Gadge Nagar, Amravati,
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
17
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
15. Adv. Shri Narayan A. Tawari,
aged about 62 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Sharda Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
16. Adv. Shri Pradeep son of Bhaurao
Manjare,
aged about 61 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of 10, Shriram Nagar, near
ISCON Temple, Rathi Nagar area, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
17. Shri Nareshchandra Panjabrao Thakre,
aged about 63 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Haturna, Tq. Warud,
Distt. Amravati.
18. Adv. Shri Madhaorao Kashirao
Deshmukh,
aged about 62 years,
occupation - Advocate,
resident of Shrivikas Colony,
near Shri Vivekanand
Colony, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. A. P. Thakre, Adv., for appellant.
Mr. A. J. Kadu, Adv., for respondent no.8.
Mr. G.R. Sadar, Adv., for respondent no.18.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016
18
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date on which
arguments were heard : 11th July, 2017
Date on which the
the judgment is
pronounced : 31st July, 2017
J U D G M E N T:
01. Since all these appeals raise a challenge to the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Amravati, in Misc. Civil Application Nos. 147, 151, 167, 181 and 182 all of 2015, they are being decided by this common judgment.
02. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
03. The dispute pertains to Change Report proceedings filed under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1951 [for short "the said Act"] with regard to elections of the Executive Council of Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati [for short "the Trust"] for the term ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 19 2012-2017.
04. The Trust is registered under the provisions of the said Act as also under the provisions of the Society's Registration Act, 1860. Its affairs are governed by its Constitution [as amended in the year 1967]. For brevity, facts in Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 are being referred to. The elections of the Executive Council of the Trust for the term commencing from 2012 for a period of five years were due. Accordingly, the Voters' List came to be published by the Executive Council on 31st December, 2011. This list became final on 16 th January, 2012. Thereafter, two Returning Officers came to be appointed for conducting the elections that were scheduled on 30 th and 31st May, 2012. On 30th May, 2012, nomination papers were filed by interested candidates. Amongst them, Shri P.P. Mahalle [respondent no.1] filed nomination for the post of Vice-President, Shri Hemant Kalmegh [respondent no.4] for the post of Member and Shri Sanjay Jagtap for the post of Treasurer. These nominations were filed as representatives of Corporate bodies. The Returning Officers, however, rejected the said nomination forms on the ground that said representatives were not competent to contest the elections on behalf of the Corporate bodies. The respondent no.1 along with two others filed Misc. Application No. 410 of 2012 under provisions of Section 22 of the said ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 20 Act, in which it was prayed that the legality and validity of the alleged change that had occurred on 30th and 31st May, 2012 be enquired into and it was further prayed that the rejection of the nomination papers of the applicants be declared to be illegal. Replies were filed in these proceedings by the contesting parties. In the meanwhile, another Change Report bearing No. 624 of 2012 was filed by the reporting trustee seeking to report the change that had occurred pursuant to the aforesaid elections. The respondent no.1 sought his addition as an objector in the change report proceedings. He also moved an application for consolidation of the proceedings in Change Report No. 410 of 2012 with Change Report No. 624 of 2012. This request came to be accepted.
05. The learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Amravati, considered both the Change Reports together and by order dated 20 th May, 2015, rejected Change Report No. 624 of 2012. Further directions were issued to the Secretary of the Society to hold fresh elections for the term from 2012 to 2017. Other directions as to the manner of holding these elections came to be issued. The reporting trustee along with others challenged this order by filing appeals under Section 70 of the said Act. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner by his judgment dated 27th July, 2015 partly allowed the appeals. The ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 21 Change Report in so far as election of the President of the Society was concerned was held to be legal and valid. The Executive Council was directed to be reconstituted by holding fresh elections for the posts of Vice-President, Treasurer and Member. Other ancillary directions in that regard came to be issued. The aggrieved parties then approached the District Court for challenging the aforesaid judgment. The learned District Judge by the impugned judgment dated 22nd December, 2015 dismissed all the Misc. Applications as well as Cross-objections. The directions for holding fresh elections were partly modified and a fresh programme in that regard was directed to be published. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the present appeals have been filed.
06. Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016, made the following submissions:-
[a] The rejection of the nomination papers of the representatives of the Corporate bodies was legal and proper and in keeping in tune with the Constitution of the Trust. It was submitted that a representative of a juristic person could not file his nomination for contesting the election to the Executive Council. According to him, it was only those members as enumerated by Article 5 Clauses 1 to 7 who could contest the elections. Ordinary members and ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 22 representatives of juristic persons only had a right to vote and they had no right to contest the elections. It was submitted that mere entry of a name in electoral roll by itself was not sufficient to enable such person to contest elections. The voters' list merely indicated the names of persons who could vote in the elections and the same by itself did not confer entitlement to contest the same. Election was that of a member and not a representative.
[b] The expression "person" as employed in various clauses of the Constitution had to be construed as referring to a natural/living person and it could not include a juristic person. This expression was required to be construed in the context in which the same had been used. It was submitted that the expression "person" as defined by Section 3 (42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could not be relied upon. Referring to Article 5 (1) to (4) of the Constitution , it was pointed out that a proxy had been given the right only to vote and not contest the elections. By referring to provisions of Article 2C (ii) which prescribe disqualifications from being eligible to contest the elections of the Executive Council, it was submitted that these disqualifications were referable only to a natural/living person. A juristic person could not become insolvent nor such juristic person be imprisoned. To buttress his aforesaid submission, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of the ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 23 Honourable Supreme Court in Dulichand Laxminarayan Vs. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Nagpur [AIR 1956 SC 354].
[c] The order of the Returning Officer was supported by submitting that the view taken that representatives of juristic bodies had no right to contest the elections was in accordance with the Constitution of the Trust. Reference was made to various communications to even indicate absence of proper authorization by juristic bodies to the representatives to contest the elections.
To substantiate his arguments, Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel, also relied upon the following decisions:-
1. A. K. Khosla & others Vs. T. S. Venkatesan & another [1992 CRI. L.J. 1448],
2. Vanmala Manoharrao Kamdi & others Vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur & others [2012 (3) Mh.L.J. 594],
3. M. A. Rasheed & others Vs. State of Kerala [ (1974) 2 SCC 687], and
4. Smt. Shalini Soni & others Vs. Union of India & others [ (1980) 4 SCC 544],
07. Shri R. L. Khapre, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 24 Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 made the following submissions:-
[a] The expression "person" included a living person as well as a juristic person. No such distinction could be carved out as sought to be urged by the appellant. There was no legal basis for denying the right to contest elections by a Corporate body which was a member of the Trust. As the name of the Corporate bodies was included in the voters' list, the burden was on the party seeking to challenge such inclusion. This burden was not discharged.
[b] In an enquiry under Section 22 of the said Act, the provisions of Order-VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, "the Code"] were applicable. By referring to the provisions of Order-L, Rule 1 of the Code as well as Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Rules, 1951 read with Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, it was submitted that various admissions given by the appellant in the reply filed to the proceedings in Enquiry No. 410/2012 were not withdrawn. These admissions were binding on the appellant. Reliance was placed on the decision in Balaji Bhikaji Kapale & another Vs. Punjaji Balaji Tayade & others [2001 (4) Mh. L.J. 821].
[c] Referring to various documents, such as Exhs. 44 to 49, it was submitted that the entitlement of B.Y.C. Ltd.::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 25 of being a member was not in question. In fact, its status as member was also admitted by the appellant in his deposition. The representative, therefore, had a right to contest elections. There was no specific restriction in the Constitution of the Trust which precluded a representative of a Corporate body from contesting the elections. Though such representative was termed as a proxy, he was, in fact, its representative. Referring to the decisions in [1] Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. & another Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 2009 SC 1905], [2] Rajendra Prasad Yadav & others Vs. State of M.P. & others [AIR 1997 SC 3723], [3] Sudam Shankar Kshirsagar & another Vs. State of Mah. & others [2010 AIR SCW 5875], [4] Anil Gupta Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & another [AIR 2014 SC 3078], [5] Board of Control for Cricket, India & another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & others [AIR 2005 SC 592 (1)], [5] Kakhil Deshastha Rugvedi Brahmin Madhyawarti Mandal Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay & another [AIR 1972 (Bom) 313] and [6] Ccentral Bank of India & another Vs. Delhi Development Authority [1981 Cr. L.J. 1476], it was urged that the expression "person" included a Corporate body.
[d] The powers under Section 41A of the said Act were rightly exercised by the Authorities when fresh ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 26 elections were directed to be held. The Authorities were also justified in appointing an independent officer for conduct the elections.
08. Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4 in Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 made the following submissions:-
[a] The expression "person" included juristic persons.
According to him, on a Corporate body being accepted as a member, all rights of a member including that of contesting elections were available. When the word "person" is interpreted in the context in which it was used, it would mean that natural persons as well as juristic persons were included therein. Referring to the fact that almost twenty-two Corporate bodies had been enrolled as members, it was submitted that there was a benevolent object behind forming the Trust and by inducting such Corporate bodies, their participation in perpetuity was sought. It was then submitted that what was being sought to be interpreted was an expression used in the Constitution of a Public Trust. This Constitution was not drafted by experts and, therefore, the purpose behind using said expression that would advance the object of the Public Trust ought to be kept in mind. A narrow view of the matter ought not to be taken nor could any literal meaning be ascribed to said expression. A distinction ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 27 was sought to be highlighted as to the manner of drafting a legislative Act and that of a Public Trust. While the former was the work of experts, the latter was not. Reference in that regard was made to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminum Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services INC [ (2016) 4 SCC 126]. An interpretation which advances the object and interest of the Trust ought to be adopted.
[b] It was then submitted that about twenty-two juristic bodies were members of the Trust. Once a juristic body was enrolled as a member, such member was entitled for all the rights and privileges available to a member which included contesting elections. The object behind enrolling juristic bodies was that the existence of the Trust was intended to be in perpetuity. Considering the past practice of permitting representatives of juristic bodies to contest elections, the manner in which which the expression "person" has been accepted by the Trust is a relevant factor which cannot be ignored. In that regard, reliance was placed on the judgment in The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & another Vs. State of Gujrat & another [AIR 1975 SC 32]. The interpretation now sought to be applied by the Trust was narrow in nature. This had resulted in creating artificial blocks, thus, curtailing participation of members, such as juristic bodies. It was, therefore, submitted that the ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 28 expression "person" ought to be interpreted to include a juristic person through its representative.
In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Som Nath Dass & others [ (2000) 4 SCC 146],
2. Snehadeep Structures Private Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Small-scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. [ (2010) 3 SCC 34],
3. Aneeta Hada Vs. Godgather Travels & Tours Pvt.
Ltd. [ (2012) 5 SCC 661], and
4. The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & another Vs. State of Gujarat & another [ AIR 1975 SC 32].
09. Shri A. J. Kadu, learned counsel for the appellant in Second Appeal No. 27 of 2016 made the following submissions:-
Besides adopting the arguments made on behalf of the appellant in Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 that representatives of Corporate bodies were not entitled to contest elections to the Executive Council, in addition, it was submitted that though the appellant sought to bring on record various details with regard ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 29 to the existence of Bhikusa Yamasa Kshtriya Company, these details were not considered. He referred to the additional submissions filed on behalf of the appellant before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the application at Exh.28 seeking permission to file documents on record and to lead further evidence. It was submitted that production of those documents was allowed and the aspect of leading additional evidence was to be considered subsequently. He also referred to the application for amending the Memorandum of Appeal at Exh.38 as well as the application for directing the respondent no.1 to produce documents as per Exh.40. Though this application was rejected by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, it was observed that if the concerned respondent failed to produce documents to substantiate its case that the Company was in existence on the date of election, adverse inference could be drawn. It was submitted that no such documents were filed on behalf of the Company. He also referred to the certificate issued with regard to the search carried out as to existence of said Company. He, therefore, submitted that the Company in question was not at all in existence and, therefore, there was no question of any representative contesting elections on its behalf. He then referred to the application moved before the learned Principal District Judge seeking permission to file documents and to lead evidence. Though no such permission was ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 30 granted, it was observed that the Company in question was in existence. Such, finding could not have been given in that regard. He referred to the judgments in Union of India Vs. K. V. Lakshman & others [2016 (6) SCALE 146] and People's Education Society & others Vs. Mansing S. Moray & others [2015 (6) Bom. C.R. 786] on the aspect of permission to lead additional evidence as well as the scope of provisions of Section 70 (3) of the said Act. Though communication was entered into with the concerned Company, there was no response from the same.
Rejection of the nomination paper was, thus, justified. It was, therefore, submitted that a representative of the Corporate bodies could only vote in the elections to the Executive Council and not contest the same.
10. Shri G. R. Sadar, learned counsel for the respondent no.21 in Second Appeal No. 27 of 2016 made the following submissions:-
[a] Though the respondent no.21 was an elected member of the Executive Council, no opportunity was given to him to put forth his case by the learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner. Said respondent had, in fact, filed Cross-objections before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the District Court. These Cross-objections were not considered in the proper perspective either by the learned Joint Charity ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 31 Commissioner or by the learned Principal District Judge. The fact that the tenure of the elected body had come to an end was not taken into consideration by said Authorities. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Ajay Maken Vs. Adesh Kumar Gupta & another [ (2013) 3 SCC 489] and Devendra Patel Vs. Ram Pal Singh & others [ (2013) 10 SCC 801].
[b] Enquiry No. 410/12 not being filed by the reporting trustee, same should not have been registered by the learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner. Supporting the stand of the appellant that a Corporate body did not have any right to contest elections, it was urged that Article 5 (v) to (vii) of the Constitution did not refer to any proxy. There was no right to contest the elections in Corporate body.
11. Shri A. P. Thakre, learned Counsel for the appellant in Second Appeal Nos.111/2016 and 112/2016 made the following submissions :
The acceptance of the Change Report No.624 of 2012 by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner as confirmed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned Principal District Judge was contrary to law. According to him, in the proceedings filed before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the learned Principal District Judge the election of ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 32 the President had been specifically challenged on the ground that the voters list had not been properly prepared which had vitiated the election process. By virtue of the impugned orders only the election of the President was upheld while the election of members of the Executive Council was set aside. It was urged that the President alone did not form the Executive Council and his election was co-terminus with that of the Executive Council. These aspects were not considered by both the Authorities thereby vitiating the adjudication. Even the Returning Officer was not duly examined before holding the election of the President to be valid. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Damyanti Naranga Vs. The Union of India & others [AIR 1971 SC 966] and submitted that if the elections are to be now held, they should be conducted by an independent Election Officer.
12. Shri P. C. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the interveners vide Civil Application No.571 of 2017 in Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 submitted that the applicants therein were life members of the Trust. In absence of any other member of the Executive Council, only the President and Secretary were functioning. As the interveners were interested in the welfare of the Trust they had sought permission to intervene in the proceedings. It was submitted that by filing Civil Application No.572/2017, it was prayed that as the elections to the ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 33 Trust were due, the same were required to be held under the supervision of an independent Election Officer.
13. In reply, Shri C. S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the validity of the voters list could be gone into in Change Report proceedings if there was wrongful inclusion of ineligible voters. According to him, there was no question of estoppel by conduct inasmuch as the question as to entitlement of representatives of juristic bodies had arisen recently and therefore, it was taken up. He then submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents were clearly distinguishable. It was necessary to consider meaning of the expression "person" in the context in which it was used. Framers of the Constitution had in mind natural persons while preparing the Constitution and, therefore, the view as taken was liable to be set aside.
14. It is necessary to state here that though the present appeals have been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, during pendency, the Full Bench of this Court in Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary Vs. Laxman Baban Mali & others [2016(3) Mh. L.J. 202] has held that an appeal filed under Section 72 (4) of the said Act is not subjected to the restrictions and limitations imposed under Section 100 ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 34 of the Code. The scope of appeal extends to re-consideration of the decision of the lower forum on questions of fact and questions of law. There is no obligation for the appellant to state substantial questions of law involved in the appeal and the Court is also not bound to formulate substantial questions of law either while admitting the appeal or hearing the same.
It is in the light of the aforesaid law that the learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
15. The following points arise for determination :-
[a] Whether the expression "person" as found in the Constitution of the Trust includes a juristic body? If it includes a juristic body, whether its representatives can participate in the elections of the Executive Council?
[b] Whether the directions issued for holding fresh elections deserve to be interfered with?
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance. I have also perused the material placed on record. Considering the fact that the interveners are life members, their intervention is permitted.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 35
17. As to Point [a] :- The disputes herein emanate from the elections of the Executive Council of the Trust that were held on 30th May, 2012 and 31st My, 2012. The bone of contention is the rejection of nomination papers that were filed by representatives of juristic bodies by the Election Officer. Change Report No. 410/2012 came to be initially filed challenging the rejection of nomination papers on aforesaid ground and consequently the election itself. Change Report No. 624/2012 was filed by the reporting trustee for acceptance of the change that had occurred pursuant to aforesaid elections. Both proceedings were decided together. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected Change Report No. 624 of 2012 and ordered holding of fresh elections. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner in proceedings under Section 70 (1) of the said Act partly allowed the appeals and held the election of the President of the Trust to be legal and valid. It was further held that rejection of the nomination papers of the representatives of juristic bodies was illegal and, therefore, directed fresh elections to be held for the posts of Vice-President, Treasurer and members of the Executive Council. The learned Principal District Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 72 (1) of the said Act maintained the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner of holding fresh elections, but modified the same partly with regard to the manner in which the elections were to ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 36 be held.
18. Since the issue between the parties relates to the entitlement of representatives of Corporate bodies to contest elections to the Executive Council, it would be first necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the amended Constitution of the Trust. The expression "member" has been defined to mean a member of the Society. Article 5 enumerates various class of members of the society. These include patron-in-chief, patron etc. and includes an ordinary member. All these classes of members constitute the General Body as per Article 7(a) of the Constitution. The General Body elects members of the Executive Council. This election is from amongst the members specified in Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5. An ordinary member is not entitled to work on the Executive Council and as per Article 2C (i)(a), except employees of the society, persons enrolled as member under Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 are entitled to contest election to the Executive Council. It is in the light of these provisions of the amended Constitution that such entitlement would have to be adjudicated.
19. While it was submitted on behalf of the appellants in Second Appeal Nos. 22 and 27 of 2012 that the expression "person" would mean only a living person and this position was sought to be ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 37 brought home by relying upon various decisions, it was the contention of the contesting respondents that said expression includes a juristic person. This position, in turn, was also sought to be canvassed on the basis of various decisions. It is to be borne in mine that what is being sought to be interpreted is an expression which forms part of the Constitution of a public Trust. In this regard, the following observations in para 10 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminum Company (supra) which were relied upon by Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel throw sufficient light in the matter of such interpretation.
"10. In the matter of interpretation, the court has to make different approaches depending upon the instrument falling for interpretation. Legislative drafting is made by experts and is subjected to scrutiny at different stages before it takes final shape of an Act, Rule or Regulation. There is another category of drafting by lawmen or document writers who are professionally qualified and experienced in the field like drafting deeds, treaties, settlements in court etc. And then there is the third category of documents made by laymen who have no knowledge of law or expertise in the field. The legal quality or perfection of the document is comparatively low in the third category, high in second and higher in first. No doubt, in the process of interpretation in the first category, the courts do make an attempt to gather the purpose of the legislation, its context and text. In the second category also, the text as well as the purpose is certainly important, and in the third category of documents like wills, it is simply intention alone of the executor that is relevant."::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::
sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 38 In the aforesaid contest, therefore, it will have to be kept in mind that the Constitution has not been drafted by any legal experts but by men of ordinary prudence. Thus, while gathering the meaning of the expression "person", the intention of the draftsman of the Constitution of the Trust would be a relevant factor.
20. As noted earlier, learned Counsel had referred to various decisions in support of their respective submissions. Reference was also made to the definition of the expression "person" as defined by provisions of Section 3 (42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It is to be noted that Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would apply while considering any expression which finds place either in a Central Act or Regulation made after commencement of that Act. Similar is the position with regard to provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904. It cannot be lost sight of that what is being sought to be interpreted is an expression that occurs in the Constitution of a public Trust and, therefore, the aforesaid expression as defined either in the Central Act or the State Act would not be very relevant in that regard. I, therefore, do not find it necessary to refer to every decision cited in that regard for ascertaining the true meaning of the expression "person". I find the following observations made in paragraph 24 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 39 Ramanlal Bhaiyalal Patel (supra) to be of much relevance.
"24. The ordinary, popular and natural meaning of the word "person" is "a specific individual human being". But in law the word "person" has a slightly different connotation and refers to any entity that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. Salmond defines "person" as "any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties" or as "a being, whether human or not, of which rights and duties are the attributes" ( Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., p.299). Thus the word "person", in law, unless otherwise intended, refers not only to a natural person (male or female human being), but also any legal person (that is an entity that is recognized by law as having or capable of having rights and duties)."
21. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that in law the expression "person" refers to any entity that is recognized by law as having rights and duties of a human being. Said expression includes any legal person besides a natural person. It is not in dispute that various juristic entities/bodies have been enrolled as members of the society. This is in accordance with Article 2(B) of the Constitution. The intention of the framers of the Constitution is clear that it is only an ordinary member who would not be entitled to contest for any post in the Executive Council. Similarly, even amongst Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5, employees of the Society have been excepted from contesting elections to the Executive Council. Thus, it is clear that ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 40 neither an ordinary member nor an employee of the society who falls in Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 are entitled to contest elections to the Executive Council. If it was the intention of the framers that even juristic persons who fall in Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 should not be eligible to contest such election, the same would have been specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It is, however, silent in that regard. Thus, excluding a juristic person from contesting the elections despite being a member under Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 would result in implied exclusion. In absence of any clear indication in that regard, the Court would be slow in interpreting the expression "person" in a narrow manner that would result in implied exclusion of juristic bodies.
22. At this stage, it would be necessary to take note of the fact that even in the previous elections, representatives of juristic entities/bodies have been permitted to contest the elections for the Executive Council. The manner in which the earlier affairs of the Trust were conducted by permitting the representatives of juristic entities/bodies to contest the earlier elections is a relevant factor and as observed in Godhra Electricity Company Ltd. [supra], the evidence of acts done under an instrument is a guide to the intention of the parties especially when such acts are done shortly after coming into force of the Constitution. I, therefore, find that there is nothing specific ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 41 in the Articles of the Constitution that would dis-entitle the representatives of juristic persons who are members falling in clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 of the Constitution from contesting elections to the Executive Council.
23. Though it was attempted to urge otherwise by relying upon the provisions of Article 2C(ii) of the Constitution that the disqualifications prescribed therein pertain only to living persons, said submission cannot be accepted. The disqualifications prescribed relate both to a living person as well as a juristic entity. While a living person could be declared insolvent, a juristic person could owe a debt to the Society and could also make a contract with the Society regarding sale, purchase or transfer of the societies moveable and immoveable property. The disqualifications prescribed would thus apply to a living person or a juristic person as the case may be or qua the representative of a juristic person in an appropriate case. This interpretation would not militate against the interests of the Trust but would in fact sub-serve the same.
An interpretation that widens the net of membership of the Trust in absence of any contrary indication in the Constitution should be preferred. Further an interpretation which helps in achieving the ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 42 objects of the Trust and enables it to exist in perpetuity should be preferred rather than an interpretation which narrows down its scope of affairs. Viewed from this angle, I find that the expression "person" would include a juristic person and a representative of such juristic person who fall in Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 of the Constitution would, therefore, be entitled to contest the elections to the Executive Council. Point [a] stands answered accordingly.
24. As to Point [b] :- Once it is found that representatives of juristic bodies were entitled to contest the elections to the Executive Council, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, learned Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the learned Principal District Judge in that regard will have to be upheld. By considering the relevant material on record, it can be said that these Authorities rightly found that the representatives or nominees of such juristic persons were entitled to contest the elections to the Executive Council. I do not find it necessary to examine the correctness of the adjudication of the acceptance or rejection of the nomination papers of the contesting candidates for the following reasons :-
The elections of the Executive Council were held on 30th May, 2012 and 31st May, 2012. The tenure of the Executive Council is for a ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 43 period of five years and during pendency of the present proceedings said term has come to an end in May, 2017. By virtue of the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner and as modified by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, the entire Executive Committee did not function till the end of its tenure in May, 2017. The principal ground on which the election of the members of the Executive Council was set aside is the wrongful rejection of the nomination papers of the representatives of juristic bodies. It has now been found that representatives of juristic bodies are eligible to contest elections of the Executive Council. In this backdrop, I find that adjudication of the respective challenges as raised with regard to the elections of the Executive Council is now not warranted as due to passage of time the term of the Executive Council for the period from 2012 to 2017 has come to an end. Instead, it can be observed that the objections pertaining to the authority of a representative to represent a juristic body are kept open for being agitated in the subsequent elections, if the occasion arises.
25. Suffice it to say that the larger interests of the Trust and its members can be subserved by directing holding of elections of the entire Executive Council for the term 2017-2022 in accordance with the Constitution of the Trust. The directions issued by the Authorities as ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 44 well as the Court under the said Act are, therefore, found to have been issued keeping in mind the interests of the Trust and the same are, therefore, sustainable in law. Point No. [b] stands answered accordingly.
26. Though it was urged on behalf of the appellant in Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 that the Authorities erred in appointing an outsider as an Election Officer, I do not find any justifiable reason to modify that direction. The same is only to ensure smooth conduct of elections considering the large number of members of the Trust. This would also result in conduct of elections in a free and fair manner. Since the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned Principal District Judge have appointed Shri C.S. Pathak, Advocate, as the Returning Officer and Shri S.Y. Deo, Superintendent, as the Assistant Returning Officer, said direction is also maintained. The elections should accordingly be held in accordance with Article 20 of the Constitution.
27. Accordingly, the following order is passed :-
ORDER ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 45 [a] It is held that representatives of juristic bodies when duly authorized are eligible to contest elections of the Executive Council.
[b] As the term of the Executive Council for 2012-17 has come to an end, fresh elections of the entire Executive Council shall be held by preparing the electoral roll as stipulated by Article 20 of the Constitution of the Trust.
[c] Shri C.S. Pathak, Advocate, shall be the Returning Officer and Shri S.V. Deo, Superintendent, shall be the Assistant Returning Officer for conducting elections of the Executive Council for the term 2017-2022.
[d] The Returning Officer along with the Assistant Returning Officer with the assistance of the Secretary of the Trust shall prepare the electoral roll as per Article 20 of the Constitution within a period of three weeks from today. The election programme be completed by 15th September, 2017.
[e] It is clarified that it would be open for the parties to raise individual objections to the entitlement of a representative of a juristic body to act as its representative for want of authorization etc. and ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 46 the earlier adjudication by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned Principal District Judge in that regard shall not preclude the same.
[f] The impugned judgment dated 22 nd December, 2015 in M.C.A. Nos. 147, 151, 167, 181 and 182 of 2015 is confirmed subject to the aforesaid.
[g] Second Appeal Nos. 22, 27, 111 and 112 of 2016 are disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
28. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant in Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 seeks stay of the directions issued while deciding the appeals. This request is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 4.
29. As it is found that the term of the Executive Council for the years 2012-2017 has come to an end and fresh elections have been directed to be held, I do not find any reason to stay these directions. Hence, request is rejected.
Judge
-0-0-0-0- |hedau| ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 ::: sas22,27,111 & 112 all of 2016 47 ::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:14:43 :::