Bombay High Court
Dr. Shankar S/O. Peeraji Gaikwad , ... vs Ashok Talwatkar And Ors on 11 January, 2021
Author: M.S. Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik
40. wpst 99654-2020.doc
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION ST.NO. 99654 OF 2020
DR. SHANKAR S/O. PEERAJI GAIKWAD ..PETITIONER
VS.
ASHOK TALWATKAR & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
---------------------
Mrs. Neeta P. Karnik for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Mahadeshwar a/w. Ms. Ranjana Todankar for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP for State.
---------------------
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 11,2021.
P.C.:-
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard fnally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.
3. The order impugned by this Petition is dated 10/12/2020 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State upon application at Exhibit 19 in Application No. 9 of 2020 fled by the petitioner. The petitioner had fled the application before the Joint Charity Commissioner for intervention on the plea that he is a person interested in the Section 41E application fled at page 10.
1/4
40. wpst 99654-2020.doc
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a trustee and that his name appears in Schedule I. My attention is invited to the impugned order. In the said order in paragraph 7 it is specifcally recorded that in the certifed copy of the Schedule I which is placed on record at Exhibit 6 it can be seen that name of Dr. S.P. Gaikwad (petitioner) is added on last page. The name was added vide orders in Change Reports No.142/1994 and 574/1995 dated 10/2/2001 and 22/7/2005 respectively and such updation has been efected in Schedule I to Charity Ofce on 30/7/2007. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded that the endorsement specifcally reveals that addition of name is only for three years. As updated Schedule I was not fled by either of the parties, learned Joint Charity Commissioner was of the opinion that Exhibit 6 does not prima facie reveal that Dr. S.P. Gaikwad is the intervener and is the sole surviving trustee on record at present. Further, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has held that there are no documents placed on record to substantiate the claim that the petitioner was operating the bank accounts. Ultimately, learned Joint Charity Commissioner held that the intervener has failed to substantiate his claim to act as a trustee.
2/4
40. wpst 99654-2020.doc
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that he has no objection if the application for intervention is allowed. He, however, opposes the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is at present a trustee. He reiterates that he has no objection if all the issues are kept open and the petitioner is heard in the application made under Section 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
6. From the order passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, it appears that the name of the petitioner was added in the Schedule I on the last page vide orders in Change Reports No.142/1994 and 574/1995 dated 10/2/2001 and 22/7/2005. There may appear to be dispute as to whether the petitioner continues to be trustee at present. Without entering into the controversy whether the petitioner is trustee or not at present, sufce it to observe that there appears to be no dispute from the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner that the petitioner has been a trustee in the past. Considering the language of Section 2 (10) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and particularly fact that the respondents have no objection if the petitioner is heard in the Section 41E application, in my opinion, interest of justice would be sub-served if all the contentions on merits are kept open including the question whether the 3/4
40. wpst 99654-2020.doc petitioner is a trustee at present or not by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the application which is at page 10 fled under Section 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
7. Keeping all contentions open the impugned order is set aside.
8. The Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Digitally signed by 9. This order will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant Diksha Diksha Rane Rane Date:
2021.01.11 of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email 18:02:02 +0530 of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.) 4/4