Bombay High Court
Suresh Janardhan Patange And Ors vs The Charity Commissioner M.S. Mumbai ... on 19 April, 2024
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2024:BHC-AUG:8330
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024 + 4.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.16 OF 2024
1) Anand s/o Saheshrao Bharose,
Age 48 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o : Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
2) Namdeo Dattarao Chavan,
Age 58 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o : Sanjivani Nagar, Pathri Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
3) Smt. Kasturbai Sheshrao Bharose,
Age 76 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o : Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
4) Rajebhau Vishwanathrao More,
Age 55 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Yashwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
5) Smt. Suryakantabai Munjaji Shinde,
Age 75 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Khanapur Ward, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
6) Mahadev Dagdoba Kasthe,
Age 60 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yashwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
7) Dnyanoba Narayanrao Jawale,
Age 62 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Shrikrishna Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
Page 1 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
8) Rajendra Gulabrao Adhav,
Age 54 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Shrikrishna Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
9) Suresh Uttamrao Adhav,
Age 58 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yashwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
10) Vitthal Ramkisan Kadam,
Age 60 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Shrikrishna Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
11) Madhav Sheshrao Vairagar,
Age 55 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
12) Shivaji Venkatrao Jadhav,
Age 57 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Shivram Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
13) Vijay Munjaji Shinde,
Age 50 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Yashwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
14) Uttam Abaji Bharose,
Age 60 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Karegaon, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
15) Sopan Dattrao Chavan,
Age 55 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Yashwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
16) Vasant Tikaram Bharose,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Service,
Page 2 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
R/o Rachana Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
17) Digambar Sheshrao Pangarkar,
Age 60 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Thadpangri, Tq. And Dist.Parbhani.
18) Vitthal Dhondiram Bobade,
Age 57 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Shrikrishna Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani. ..PETITIONERS
~ versus ~
1) Dr. Vedprakash s/o Kashirao Patil,
Age 81 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Mohini Building, Shivaji Nagar,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
At Present Residing At,
Plot No.138, Sector___,
N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.
2) Shivaji s/o Namdevrao Kakde,
Age 73 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Krushi Sarthi Colony,
Vasmat Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
3) Vitthalrao s/o Govindrao Bhosle,
Age 69 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Wadona Tq. Udgir, Dist.Latur.
4) Dr. Vikram Vilasrao Patil,
Age 43 years, Occu.: Doctor,
R/o Gajanan Nagar, Karegaon
Road, Near Canal, Parbhani
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
5) Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Ghubde,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Service,
Page 3 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
R/o Harsh Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
6) Dr. Chandrakant N. Galdhar,
Age 45 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Vikas Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
7) Pramod Uttamrao Shinde,
Age 48 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Padegaon, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
8) Prakash Kundlikrao Pradhan,
Age 50 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Sarnath Colony, Dhar Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
9) Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai.
10) Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Office of Charity Commissioner,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
11) Keshavrao s/o Dhondji Bharose,
Age 78 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
12) Parmeshwar s/o Narayan Dake,
Age 70 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
13) Shivaji Bajirao Aher,
Age 65 years, Occu.: Legal Practitioner,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
14) Honajirao s/o Kishanrao Jawale,
Page 4 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Age 67 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Shivram Nagar, Vasmath Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
15) Dr. Laxman s/o Narayanrao Jawale,
Age 59 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Ramkrushna Nagar,
Near Navasya Maroti Mandir,
Vasmath Road, Parbhani.
16) Pandurang s/o Namdevrao Aher,
Age 65 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
17) Smt. Mahananda Narayan Shiradkar,
Age 70 years, Occu.: Pensioner,
R/o Bhagya Laxmi Nagar, Ramkrushna
Nagar, Vasmath Road, Parbhani.
18) Committee of First Board of Trustees,
Through its Secretary,
Vivekananda English School, Vasmat
Road, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist.Parbhani. ..RESPONDENTS
....
APPEARANCES :
- Senior Advocate Mr. R. N. Dhorde i/by Advocate Mr. V. S. Kadam
For Petitioners/Applicants
- Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, A.G.P. for State.
- Advocate Mr. Khandare Nandkumar Bhagwanrao for R.No.1.
- Advocate Mr. Shrikant V. Adwant for R.No. 2.
- Advocate Mr. Choudhari D. J. For R.No.3.
- Advocate Mr. Gitte Mukund D. And Mr. Prafullasing H. Patil For R.No.4,
6 and 8.
- Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Sapkal i/by Advocate Mr. S.R. Sapkal and
Mr. Saurabh M. Avhad for R.No. 5.
- Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Hon i/by Advocate Mr. Ashwin Vinayak
Hon for R.No. 7.
- Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh alongwith Advocate Mr.
Jay Veer i/by Advocate Mr. Kute Rajendra L. for R.Nos. 11 to 18.
Page 5 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
...
WITH
CA/783/2024 IN WP/16/2024
.....
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1571 OF 2024
1) Keshavrao s/o Dhondji Bharose,
Age 78 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
2) Parmeshwar s/o Narayan Dake,
Age 70 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
3) Shivaji Bajirao Aher,
Age 65 years, Occu.: Legal Practitioner,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
4) Honajirao s/o Kishanrao Jawale,
Age 67 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Shivram Nagar, Vasmath Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
5) Dr. Laxman s/o Narayanrao Jawale,
Age 59 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Ramkrushna Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
6) Pandurang s/o Namdevrao Aher,
Age 65 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
7) Smt. Mahananda Narayan Shiradkar,
Age 70 years, Occu.: Pensioner,
Page 6 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
R/o Bhagya Laxmi Nagar, Vasmath
Road, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist.
Parbhani. ..PETITIONERS
~ versus ~
1) Dr. Vedprakash s/o Kashirao Patil,
Age 81 years, Occu.: Retired,
At Present Residing At,
Plot No.138, Besides High Court,
N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.
2) Shivaji s/o Namdevrao Kakde,
Age 73 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Krushi Sarthi Colony,
Vasmat Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
3) Vitthalrao s/o Govindrao Bhosle,
Age 79 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Wadona Tq. Udgir, Dist.Latur.
4) Dr. Vikram Vilasrao Patil,
Age 43 years, Occu.: Doctor,
R/o Gajanan Nagar, Karegaon
Road, Near Canal, Parbhani
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
5) Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Ghubde,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Harsh Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
6) Dr. Chandrakant N. Galdhar,
Age 45 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Vikas Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
7) Pramod Uttamrao Shinde,
Age 48 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Padegaon, Parbhani,
Page 7 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
8) Prakash Kundlikrao Pradhan,
Age 50 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Sarnath Colony, Dhar Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
9) Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai.
10) Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Office of Charity Commissioner,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani. ..RESPONDENTS
.....
APPEARANCES :
- Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh alongwith Advocate Mr.
Jay Veer i/by Advocate Mr. Kute Rajendra L. for Petitioners
- Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, A.G.P. for state.
- Advocate Mr. Khandare Nandkumar Bhagwanrao for R.No.1.
- Advocate Mr. Shrikant V. Adwant for R.No. 2.
- Advocate Mr. Choudhari D. J. For R.No.3.
- Advocate Mr. Gitte Mukund D. And Mr. Prafullasing H. Patil For R.No.4,
6 and 8.
- Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Sapkal i/by Advocate Mr. S.R. Sapkal and
Mr. Saurabh M. Avhad for R.No. 5.
- Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Hon i/by Advocate Mr. Ashwin Vinayak
Hon for R.No. 7.
....
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.15 OF 2024
1) Suresh s/o Janardhan Patange,
Age 55 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Rachna Nagar, Karegaon Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
2) Ramrao s/o Dagduji Kharat,
Page 8 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Age 61 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Sanjeevani Nagar, Pathri
Road, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist.
Parbhani.
3) Bharat s/o Keshavrao Shelke,
Age 55 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Vasmat
Road, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist.
Parbhani.
4) Vishwanath s/o Amrutrao Chavan,
Age 69 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Nagangaon, Tq. Jintur,
Dist. Parbhani.
5) Balasaheb s/o Bapurao Bharose,
Age 62 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur
Phata, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist.
Parbhani.
6) Gulabrao s/o Shamrao Adhav,
Age 74 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Banegaon, Post. Nathra,
Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani.
7) Champat s/o Narayan Bhusare,
Age 55 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Navaki, Tq. Purna,
Dist. Parbhani.
8) Prakash s/o Suryabhan Ghongade,
Age 55 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Paheni, Tq. And Dist.Parbhani.
9) Nanasaheb s/o Kisanrao Narale,
Age 61 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Lokmanya Nagar, Behind
Jayakwadi Rest House, Parbhani
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
Page 9 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
10) Dnyaneshwar s/o Keshavrao Magar,
Age 60 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Shantiniketan Colony,
Gangakhed Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
11) Santosh s/o Jankiram Kadam,
Age 46 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Rachna Nagar, Karegaon Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
12) Ranganath s/o Laxmanrao Khating,
Age 63 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Shri Hari Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
13) Ramesh s/o Balvantrao Shinde,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur
Phata, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist.
Parbhani.
14) Bhagorao s/o Sakharam Sonune,
Age 62 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Sanjeevani Nagar, Pathri Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
15) Ashroba s/o Digambar Kadam,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Sanjeevani Nagar, Pathri Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist.Parbhani.
16) Anant s/o Sheshrao Vairagar,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Arogya Colony, Karegaon Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
17) Suwarna w/o Kishanrao Jawale,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Asola, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
18) Sunita w/o Shivajirao Jadhav,
Page 10 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Age 52 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Shivram Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
19) Rukhmini w/o Laxmanrao Jawale,
Age 51 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Ramkrushna Nagar, Near
Maruti Mandir, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani.
20) Jayashree w/o Satishrao Shinde,
Age 49 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Datta Dham parisar, Vasmat
Road, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
21) Rajshree w/o Dnyanoba Jawale,
Age 56 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Shree Krishna Nagar, Vasmat
Road, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani. ..PETITIONERS
~ versus ~
1) The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
Building of Sasmira Institute of
Management, Second Floor,
Sasmira Building, Sasmira Road,
Worli, Mumbai.
2) Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Parbhani, Subhedar Complex,
Kranti Chowk, Parbhani, Tq. And
Dist. Parbhani.
3) Vitthalrao s/o Govindrao Bhosle,
Age 79 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Wadona, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
4) Vedprakash s/o Kashirao Patil,
Age 81 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o "Shantai", Plot No.138,
Page 11 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.
5) Shivaji s/o Namdevrao Kakde,
Age 73 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Krushi Sarthi Colony,
Vasmat Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
6) Dr. Vikram Vilasrao Patil,
Age 43 years, Occu.: Doctor,
R/o Patil Hospital, Old Pedgaon
Road, Ner Hotel Sanjay Inn, Parbhani
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
7) Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Ghubde,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Harsh Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
8) Dr. Chandrakant N. Galdhar,
Age 45 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Mumbai Veterinary College,
XRXW+C9C, Parel Village, Sindhu
Nagar, Parel, Mumbai-400012.
9) Dr. Pramod Uttamrao Shinde,
Age 48 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Padegaon, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
10) Prakash Kundlikrao Pradhan,
Age 50 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Sarnath Colony, Dhar Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
11) Keshavrao s/o Dhondji Bharose,
Age 78 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
12) Parmeshwar s/o Narayan Dake,
Page 12 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Age 70 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
13) Shivaji Bajirao Aher,
Age 65 years, Occu.: Legal Practitioner,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
14) Honajirao s/o Kishanrao Jawale,
Age 67 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Shivram Nagar, Vasmath Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
15) Dr. Laxman s/o Narayanrao Jawale,
Age 59 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Ramkrushna Nagar,
Near Navasya Maroti Mandir,
Vasmath Road, Parbhani.
16) Pandurang s/o Namdevrao Aher,
Age 65 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
17) Smt. Mahananda Narayan Shiradkar,
Age 70 years, Occu.: Pensioner,
R/o Bhagya Laxmi Nagar, Ramkrushna
Nagar, Vasmath Road, Parbhani.
18) Committee of First Board of Trustees,
Through its Secretary,
Vivekananda English School, Vasmat
Road, Parbhani, Tq. And Dist.Parbhani. ..RESPONDENTS
..
APPEARANCES :
- Advocate Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar h/f Advocate Mr. Chavan Sudhir
K. For Petitioners
- Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, A.G.P. for state.
- Advocate Mr. Choudhari D. J. For R.No.3.
Page 13 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
- Advocate Mr. Khandare Nandkumar Bhagwanrao for R.No. 4.
- Advocate Mr. Shrikant V. Adwant for R.No. 5.
- Advocate Mr. Gitte Mukund D. And Mr. Prafullasing H. Patil For R.No.
6, 8 and 10.
- Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Hon i/by Advocate Mr. Ashwin Vinayak
Hon for R.No. 9.
- Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh alongwith Advocate Mr.
Jay Veer i/by Advocate Mr. Kute Rajendra L. for R.Nos. 11 to 18.
....
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 994 OF 2024
IN WP/15/2024
...
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.662 OF 2024
1) Dr. Rahul s/o Vedprakash Patil,
Age 48 years, Occu.: Social Work,
R/o Plot No.138, Shivaji Nagar,
Parbhani.
2) Mahendrasingh Dalpatrao Solunke,
Age 48 years, Occu.: Agri.& Social Work,
R/o Mehendra Nagar, Parbhani.
3) Udaysingh s/o Vitthalrao Bhosale,
Age 49 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Sarvoday Society Udgir,
Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
4) Gajanan s/o Shivajirao Kakade,
Age 46 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o Karegaon Road, Vyankatesh
Nagar, Parbhani. ..PETITIONERS
(Orig.Resp.No.179 to 182)
~ versus ~
1) The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
Page 14 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
2) The Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Office of Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Vakil Colony, Parbhani. ..RESPONDENTS
....
APPEARANCES :
- Advocate Mr. Gangakhedkar Shailendra S. For Petitioners
- Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, A.G.P. for State.
- Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh alongwith Advocate Mr.
Jay Veer i/by Advocate Mr. Kute Rajendra L. for Intervenors
Applicants.
....
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2180 OF 2024
IN WP/662/2024
...
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.801 OF 2024
Dr. Manish s/o Narayanrao Kadam,
Age 54 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Vasmat Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani. ..PETITIONER
~ versus ~
1) The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
Building of Sasmira Institute of
Management, Second Floor,
Sasmira Building, Sasmira Road,
Worli, Mumbai.
2) Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Parbhani, Subhedar Complex,
Kranti Chowk, Parbhani, Tq. And
Page 15 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Dist. Parbhani.
3) Vedprakash s/o Kashirao Patil,
Age 81 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o "Shantai", Plot No.138,
N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.
4) Honajirao s/o Kishanrao Jawale,
Age 67 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Shivram Nagar, Vasmath Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
5) Pandurang s/o Namdevrao Aher,
Age 65 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
6) Prakash Kundlikrao Pradhan,
Age 50 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Sarnath Colony, Dhar Road,
Parbhani, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
7) Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Ghubde,
Age 52 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Harsh Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
8) Keshavrao s/o Dhondji Bharose,
Age 78 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
9) Parmeshwar s/o Narayan Dake,
Age 70 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Yeshwant Nagar, Khanapur Phata,
Parbhani Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
10) Shivaji Bajirao Aher,
Age 65 years, Occu.: Legal Practitioner,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
Page 16 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
11) Dr. Laxman s/o Narayanrao Jawale,
Age 59 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Ramkrushna Nagar,
Near Navasya Maroti Mandir,
Vasmath Road, Parbhani.
12) Smt. Mahananda Narayan Shiradkar,
Age 70 years, Occu.: Pensioner,
R/o Bhagya Laxmi Nagar, Ramkrushna
Nagar, Vasmath Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
13) Dr. Vikram Vilasrao Patil,
Age 43 years, Occu.: Doctor,
R/o Patil Hospital, Old Pedgaon
Road, Ner Hotel Sanjay Inn, Parbhani
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
14) Shivaji s/o Namdevrao Kakde,
Age 73 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Krushi Sarthi Colony,
Vasmat Road, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
15) Vitthalrao s/o Govindrao Bhosle,
Age 79 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o Wadona, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur.
16) Dr. Chandrakant N. Galdhar,
Age 45 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Mumbai Veterinary College,
XRXW+C9C, Parel Village, Sindhu
Nagar, Parel, Mumbai-400012.
17) Dr. Pramod Uttamrao Shinde,
Age 48 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Padegaon, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani. ..RESPONDENTS
....
Page 17 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions
WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
APPEARANCES :
- Advocate Mr. Nikam Prashant K. For Petitioner
- Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, A.G.P. for state.
- Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh alongwith Advocate Mr.
Jay Veer i/by Advocate Mr. Kute Rajendra L. for R. Nos. 5, 8 to 12 and
21.
- Advocate Mr. Gitte Mukund D. And Mr. Prafullasing H. Patil For R.No.
6, 13 and 16
- Advocate Mr. Shrikant V. Adwant for R.No. 14.
- Advocate Mr. Choudhari D. J. For R.No.15.
....
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
RESERVED ON : 08/04/2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 19/04/2024
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable. With consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order formulating a scheme for better management of the trust under Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the appointment of the First Board of Trustees by the Charity Commissioner by the impugned order.
3. The genesis of the present petitions lies in the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25/04/2023 in SLP (C) No.2151/2023 and Page 18 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
03/10/2023 in Miscellaneous Application No.2073/2023 in C.A.No.3315/2023. The relevant portion of order dated 25/04/2023 is quoted below for ready reference : -
"1. Leave granted.
2. The learned Judge while deciding the petitions begins his judgment with the following observations:-
"...The trust, established with a noble objective of making available educational facilities amongst the members of public in the year 1979, how now embroiled itself into serious disputes relating to control over its management and affairs. As of today, there are two rival groups who are asserting rights to manage and control affairs of the trust."
3. It is disheartening to note that the Sanjivani Education Society, a registered trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'), which was established with the noble object of imparting education, is involved in such a litigation.
4. Prima facie, we are of the view that this litigation is nothing else but luxurious litigation to grab control over the affairs of the Trust. We, therefore, find that it would be appropriate that the Charity Commissioner, Bombay frames a scheme for the management of the affairs of the Trust.
5. We, therefore, direct that the Charity Commissioner, Bombay shall frame a scheme under the provisions of Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, for efficient management of the Trust after hearing the Page 19 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
rival parties. The same shall be done within a period of six months from today.
6. .....
7. .....
8. .....
9. .....
10. .....
11. The impugned orders are, therefore, quashed and set aside. With the above observations and directions, these appeals are disposed of.
12. Needless to state that since we have directed the Charity Commissioner, Bombay to frame a scheme afresh, all claims would be decided afresh, without being prejudiced by any of the earlier orders.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 03/10/2023 clarified the above order dated 25/04/2023. The order dated 03/10/2023 is quoted below for ready reference : -
"1. .....
2. Vide order dated 25th April, 2023, we had passed the following direction:
"5. We, therefore, direct that the Charity Commissioner,Bombay shall frame a scheme under the provisions of Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, for efficient management of the Trust after Page 20 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
hearing the rival parties. The same shall be done within a period of six months from today."
2. The very intent of the order was that in order to avoid the conflicting claims of the parties, the learned Charity Commissioner should frame a scheme afresh so as to ensure the efficient management of the Sanjivani Education Society, a registered Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust") in question.
3. The Court had passed this order in the background of the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the Trust, which was framed with an objective of making available education facilities for the general public, had now embroiled itself into serious disputes relating to the control of its management.
4. The very purpose of the order was to avoid the Trust being run in an inefficient manner. Therefore, the learned Charity Commissioner was directed to frame a scheme which would ensure effective management of the Trust.
5. The question as to who are entitled to be the trustees, would arise only after a scheme is framed by the learned Charity Commissioner.
6. Though, we do not find that the learned Charity Commissioner was erroneous in holding that it was not for him to decide the question of membership, we clarify that before framing of the Scheme, the learned Charity Commissioner shall Page 21 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
give a hearing to both the sides, i.e. the Bharose Group and Patil Group. It is only after both the sides are heard, the learned Charity Commissioner would arrive at a finding as to what scheme would be the best one for the efficient management of the trust in question.
7. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly."
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the serious disputes relating to the control over the management of the Sanjivani Education Society, a registered Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust") by the rival groups i.e. Bharose Group and Patil Group observed that, the parties are involved in luxurious litigation to grab control over the affairs of the Trust, and as such, to ensure effective management of the Trust, direction was issued to the Charity Commissioner, Bombay to frame a scheme afresh under Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Supreme Court also quashed and set aside the order impugned before it and observed that since it has directed the Charity Commissioner, Bombay to frame a scheme afresh, all claims would be decided afresh, without being prejudiced by any of the earlier orders.
6. In pursuance of the above orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Charity Commissioner formulated a scheme under Section Page 22 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act after hearing the rival factions i.e. the Patil Group and Bharose Group and others. The Charity Commissioner also appointed the First Board of Trustees in the scheme. The same is challenged here by filing the present writ petitions.
7. In WP No.16/2024 the petitioners are the original applicants in the scheme application filed at Exhibit 108 in Misc.Appln.No.79/2023. The petitioners are challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 19/12/2023 of the Charity Commissioner whereby the petitioners claim for appointment on First Board of Trustees has been rejected. The petitioners contend that they are the contributors for the Trust in the past and are also better suited than the alleged independent trustees. It is also their case that the appointment of alleged independent trustees is not in the interest of the Trust.
8. In WP No.15/2024 the petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 19/12/2023 of the Charity Commissioner whereby the petitioners' claim to the appointment of First Board of Trustees is declined. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed their application scheme at Exhibit 130. The petitioners are also challenging the appointment of five independent trustees to the Trust as not being Page 23 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
independent and not being better suited than the petitioners to be admitted in the First Board of Trust.
9. In WP No.1571/2024 the petitioners are seven trustees appointed by the Charity Commissioner by the impugned order dated 19/12/2023. The petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of appointment of respondents No.4 to 8 (independent trustees) as a First Board of Trustees by the Charity Commissioner. The petitioners also challenges the appointment of founder trustees contending that their appointment is not in the interest of the Trust.
10. In WP No.662/2024, the petitioners are challenging the observations in the order impugned at issue No.4 holding that the petitioners are not entitled to be the trustees being sons of founder members on the principle of nepotism. The four petitioners /original respondents were No.179 to 189 before the Charity Commissioner.
11. WP No.801/2024 is filed by Dr. Manish Narayanrao Kadam challenging the impugned order whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the First Board of Trustees is rejected. He claims to be an independent person having no connection with either of the Patil Group or the Bharose Group and contends that he holds the qualification to Page 24 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
be the trustees. The petitioner contends that he has gifted land to the Trust and is interested in the development of the Trust. FACTS :
12. Before I deal with the scheme framed by Charity Commissioner under Section 50A of the Act and the challenges to it and the First Board of Trustees, the brief facts leading to the filing of the petitions which are necessary to decide the present petitions are noted here : -
The Sanjivani Education Society, Parbhani was registered on 17/04/1979 by eight founders of which three are alive today. The first constitution of the Trust was prepared by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Parbhani. The Trust was controlled and managed by the founder trustee i.e. Shesherao Bharose for a long period of time till the year 2003. All the 31 institutions of the Trust were established during this period. The institutions are primarily schools, secondary schools and colleges. It is alleged that the Trust from its inception till 2003 was controlled by Mr. Shesherao Bharose who was the President of the Trust in an autocratic manner to the exclusion of all other trustees. Remaining trustees at the relevant time were employees of the Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani.Page 25 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
13. The disputes between the parties started in November 2003 when the elections were held of the Trust. The change report of the elections of 20/11/2003 was rejected as there were allegations of wrongful induction of 25 members. The dispute between two groups i.e. one side the Bharose Group and on the other hand the Patil Group festered for a long period of time, and in the meanwhile, another issue arose as regards induction of 157 members by the Bharose Group and 4 members by the Patil Group.
14. In the year 2009, the President Shesherao Bharose passed away. The challenge to the inclusion of 157 members of Bharose Group was decided by this Court by order dated 21/12/2022 in Writ Petition No.6268 of 2019 and other connected matters, and this Court held that the record about 157 persons being inducted as members is suspicious and not genuine, and rejected the claim of 157 members, against which Special Leave Petition was preferred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25/04/2023 quoted at paragraph No.2 passed order directing the Charity Commissioner to frame a fresh scheme under Section 50A (1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, so also the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Page 26 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
15. The Charity Commissioner, thereafter issued notices to all the parties. The issue of 157 members was again raised before the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner refused to entertain the issue of membership under Section 50A of the Act against which the aggrieved party approached the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified its earlier order by order dated 03/10/2023, as quoted in paragraph No.2 above. In pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Charity Commissioner framed a scheme after hearing all the parties, which is challenged in the present writ petitions.
16. The contentions of the petitioners in the Writ Petitions No.15/2024, 16/2024 and 1571/2024 appears to be that the Patil Group has not contributed anything to the trust. All the trust properties are acquired during the tenure of Mr. Shesherao Bharose from the contributions made from the family of Mr. Shesherao Bharose and others and that the trustees of the Patil Group at the relevant time were employees of the Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani and has not contributed anything for the betterment of the Trust. It is only after they retired from the University that the problems have started with the Trust when they made attempts to gain the control over the Trust. It is further contention of the members of the Bharose Group that the founder members of the Page 27 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Patil Group have indulged into wrongful practices while they were in their respective positions as the office bearers of the universities and that admitting them as trustees in a freshly formulated scheme is not for the benefit of the Trust and the Charity Commissioner ought to have taken all these factors into consideration before appointing the founder members and other members suggested by the Patil Group on the Trust, as the First Board of Trustees.
17. It is also the contention of the Bharose Group in Writ Petition No.15/2024 that they are qualified to be the trustees and the claims of qualified persons are not considered, more particularly when they have contributed lands and money to the Trust, and they are residing / living in the vicinity of the Trust and are better qualified than the members suggested by the Patil Group, and their appointment would be in the interest of the Trust.
18. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the independent trustees suggested for the betterment of the Trust by the Patil Group are not independent and supporters of the Patil Group.
19. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Charity Commissioner to formulate a fresh scheme under Section 50A of the Page 28 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, the said section is quoted below for ready reference : -
"50A. Power of Assistant or Deputy charity Commissioner to frame, amalgamate or modify schemes (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 50, where the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner has reason to believe that, in the interest of the proper management or administration of public trust, a scheme should be settled for it, or where two or more persons having interest in a public trust make an application to him in writing in the prescribed manner that, in the interest of the proper management or administration of a public trust, a scheme should be settled for it, the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner may, if, after giving the trustees of such trust due opportunity to be heard, he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, frame a scheme for the management or administration of such public trust.
(2) Where the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner is of opinion that in the interest of the proper management or administration, two or more public trusts may be amalgamated by framing a common scheme for the same, he may, after--
(a) publishing a notice in the Official Gazette and also if necessary in any newspaper which in the opinion of the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner is best calculated to bring to the notice of persons likely to be interested in the trust with a wide circulation in the region Page 29 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
in which the trust is registered, and
(b) giving the trustees of such trusts and all other interested persons due opportunity to be heard, frame a common scheme for the same."
(3) The Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner may, at any time, after hearing the trustees, modify the scheme framed by him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). (4) The scheme framed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or modified under sub-section (3) shall, subject to the decision of the Charity Commissioner under section 70, have effect as a scheme settled or altered, as the case may be, under a decree of a Court under section 50.
20. The power to formulate the scheme under Section 50A of the Act vests with the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner. However, looking into the facts situation, the Supreme Court had directed the Charity Commissioner to formulate a scheme. Ordinarily the order passed by the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner, an appeal would lie to the Joint charity Commissioner under Section 70 (1) (c-2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. However, since the scheme is formulated by the charity Commissioner, there is no provision for appeal under the Act against an order of the Charity Commissioner. Thus, the only remedy to the aggrieved person is to challenge impugned order is by involving Page 30 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
jurisdiction of this Court.
SUBMISSION OF PETITIONERS :
21. The submissions of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh and learned Advocate Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar in Writ Petitions No.15/2024, 16/2024 and 1574/2024 are overlapping, and thus, submissions of learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. N. Dhorde are recorded below. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. N. Dhorde submits that, admittedly though respondents No.1 to 3 founders i.e. Mr. V. K. Patil, S. N. Kakde and Vitthal Bhosle who were working in Marathwada Agricultural University in same vicinity/premises wherein schools are established by five founder members but never took part in day to day administration of trust nor contributed any amount/donation to establish 31 educational institution. This fact alleged by petitioners in Writ Petitions is not denied by above three person. On the contrary in their written arguments filed by respondents No.1 to 3 clearly admits that they could not fully cater to expectation of law from 1979 till 2009 in the nature of duties and obligations in discharge of Trust.
22. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that the dispute in Page 31 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
management was started by respondents No.1 to 3 by preparing bogus record of Cr.No.527/ 2003 which was specifically rejected by Assistant Charity Commissioner and confirmed in Appeal No.23/2010, 24/2010 and 26/2010 by Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad by Judgment dated 02/03/2017 and dispute for power was started by respondent No.1 to 3 only after death of Shesherao Bharose in 2009. As per second Order of the Hon'ble supreme court dated 03/10/2023, it was directed in para 5 that, first scheme will be framed and only thereafter question of appointment of trustees will occur. However, the Charity Commissioner failed to follow the directions.
23. It is stated that Judgment in Bharat Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 534, is not applicable in present case and contentions by Patil Group that names of alleged five independent persons were not objected, is wrong.
24. Admittedly petitioners in WP No.1571/2024 are now appointed as trustees and are members of Trust. Further petitioners in WP No.16/2024 and petitioners in WP No.15/2024 are made legal members and their donations are accepted by legal and Valid First Governing Council by passing necessary resolutions during period 1983 to 1996. AIl the Page 32 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
decisions taken by First Governing Council from 1979 till 2003 are held legal and valid by Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No.23/2010, 24/2010 and 26/2010 by Judgment dated 02/03/2017 and this finding is not challenged and become final.
25. Therefore, as per Judgment in Damyanti Naranga vs. The Union of India and others, reported in 1971 AIR 966, the petitioners in all writ petitions have fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(c) to oppose the appointment of respondent 5 persons No.4 to 8 Mrs.Asha Ghubde, Mr.Vikram Patil, Mr.Pramod Shinde, Mr.Chandrakant Galdhar and Mr. Pradhan who have no concern with trust. Hence, Judgment relied by respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Supreme Court Bar Association and Others vs. B. D. Kaushik, reported in (2011) 13 Sureme Court Cases 774, does not support contentions of respondents No.1 to 3. Hence, petitioners have locus to challenge the judgment of the Charity Commissioner framing the scheme and appointment of the alleged independent trustees by filing Writ Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the Supreme Court directed Charity Commissioner to hear petitioners and frame scheme and since the Charity Commissioner committed mistake apparent on face of record, causing serious injustice to petitioners appointing five independent persons. In Page 33 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
fact the petitioners being made members by the 5 founder members by resolutions which by resolutions/transactions held Valid from 1979 till 2003 of the trust have fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India to be associated with the persons/members who have connection with the trust. In fact, as per Old Scheme member of Sanjiani Trust includes founder along with patron Subscriber etc.
26. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. N. Dhorde further submits that the Maharashtra Public Trust is complete code in itself and objection raised by the Patil Group are baseless as the petitioners have produced copy of Judgment Dhaneshwari Manav Vikas Mandal of which respondent No.1, respondent No.7 and Dr. Rahul Patil are committee members. Further petitioners have given certificate U/S 65 B of Evidence Act in respect of articles downloaded from Google. Hence contentions raised are baseless.
27. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. N. Dhorde submits that all petitioners in three writ petitions are persons interested in Sanjivani Trust as per Section 2 (10) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. He relied on Judgment in Digambar Pralhad Jot and Others vs. Satyanarayan Biharilal Zunzunwala and Others, reported in AIR 1978 Bombay Page 34 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
196. In paragraph No.7, it is specifically held that the persons who are donors of the registered public trust i.e. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Akot and who have filed the application under section 50 (A) B.P.T. Act, before Charity Commissioner, Bombay and later on forwarded to Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur are the persons interested in the trust and claimed removal of trustees along with other reliefs. In the present case also the Charity Commissioner has specifically held that all the present petitioners are donors in the form of money/ immovable property and this findings is not challenged by the respondents No.1 to 8 by filing Writ Petition. Hence, the petitioners have locus in the present matter.
28. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that the present respondents No.1 to 3 on one hand claims that the person who are not associated with the trust are not entitled to claim any right of appointment as trustees while opposing the claim of petitioners. On the other hand are justifying the appointment of the respondents No.4 to 8 who admittedly are not associated with the trust in any form and never participated in the upliftment of Sanjivani Education Trust. This contradictory stand taken by the respondents No.1 to 3 itself supports the case of present petitioners that the present respondents No.4 to 8 have no legal right to be appointed as trustees and hence the present Page 35 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
respondents No.1 to 3 are estopped from raising the contradictory stand.
29. Following petitioners are members of Sanjivani Trust and highly qualified than respondents No.4 to 8 and will be helpful for future development of 31 Educational institution :
Sr.No Name Designation
1 WP/15/2024 Bharat Shelke, BA. BP.Ed. Assistant
Teacher
2 Dr. Vishwanath Chavan, MA Retired
(Economics) MA (Political Science) Professor
3 Bhagorao S. Sonune (SC Category), Retired Head
BA,B.Ed. Master
4 Rangnath L. Khating, BA, B.Ed. Retired Head
Master
5 WP/16/2024 Anand Bharose, B.Sc.Agri
(during pendency of present petition is
discharged by Criminal Court, Parbhani
in RCC No.521/2023 by Judgment dated
02/04/2024.)
6 Namdeo Dattarao Chavan, B.Com. Retired as
Deputy
Manager in DCC
Bank, Parbhani.
7 Mahadeo Dagadu Kashte, BA, B.Ed. Retired Head
Master.
8 Shivaji Venkat Jadhav, BE Civil Retired
Assistant
Director of
Town Planning
9 Uttam Abaji Bharose, BA, B.Ed. Retired Head
Master.
All 31 educational institutions are either primary school, secondary Page 36 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
schools, junior colleges, senior colleges and military school for which above persons have highest qualifications to be appointed as trustees being members of the trust in place of respondents No.4 to 8. Further the qualifications of petitioners will be helpful for future development of trust as members
30. Admittedly the Charity Commissioner in its judgment specifically held that the respondents No.4 to 8 are not connected with Sanjivani Trust by any means. Respondent No.4 is Dr. Vikram Patil (MBBS ie. medical field ), respondent No.5 Asha Ghubade is Nurse (Medical Field), respondent No.6 Dr. Chandrakant Galdhar (Medical/Veterinary field), respondent No.7 Pramod Uttamrao Shinde (Medical field), though having educational qualification are not relevant and useful to the Sanjivani trust as the Trust has no Medical College or Hospital out of 31 institution and primary, secondary schools, junior colleges, senior colleges and military school. Hence observation of charity commissioner that qualifications of respondents No.4 to 8 will help Sanjivani trust is itself contrary to record.
31. The learned Advocate submits that the impugned Judgment of the Charity Commissioner is perverse & contrary to Law causing severe injustice to the petitioners. Judgment of the Charity Commissioner is in Page 37 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
breach of principles of natural Justice as it does not give reasons as to how respondents No.4 to 8 are more suitable than petitioners who are members. Further judgment ignores basic principle of law that persons having no connection with trust cannot be appointed as First Board of Trustees when qualified members are available. No reasons are given as to why highly qualified petitioners as mentioned above should not be appointed. Appointment of respondents No.4 to 8 by the Charity Commissioner under Clause 8 is in direct contravention of Clause No.7(c) as per new Constitution as the scheme permits help of outsiders but they will have no authority or power to vote and participate in proceedings of trust. Respondents No.4 to 8 never claimed in their pleadings that they are independent persons before the Charity Commissioner yet the Charity Commissioner on its own assumed that respondents No.4 to 8 are independent trustees ignoring the record pointed by the petitioners that they are not independent trustees. The reliance placed by respondents No.1 to 3 on letter is misplaced. The respondents No.1 to 3 are now contending that the trust was established by them and outsiders were not allowed is misplaced for the reason that respondents No.1 to 3 never participated in day to day administration of trust though they were in the same premises where the trust was formed and first school are Page 38 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
established along with total 31 educational institutions and also has not contributed for development of trust. Since the schools were to be started and Sanjivani trust had no funds, therefore 157 members including all petitioners were inducted as members by first Governing council i.e. founders a) Shri. S.D. Bharose, b) Shri. D. A. Solanke, c) Shri. Raghubhai Patel, d) Shri. B. G. Nirval, e) Mrs. Shantshila Sarnaik, (out of which Shri. Solanke, Shri Nirwal and Mrs.Naik were working in University but not participated) and donation received by trust from members was used for development of 31 educational institutions as it has helped to fulfill object of Sanjivani Trust. Hence the letter has no meaning at all in the changed circumstances.
32. The primary contention of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. N. Dhorde for the petitioners is that the Trust progressed in the tenure of Mr. Shesherao Bharose and all the institutions were opened during the tenure of Mr. Shesherao Bharose with donation of cash and land from the Bharose family. The Trust members of Patil Group were employed with the Marathwada Agricultural University and all the problems have started with the Trust to gain the control over the Trust. Not a single institute is established after the appointment of members from the Patil Group. The members of the Patil Group are disasters to the effective functioning and Page 39 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
the welfare of the Trust. The so called independent members appointed on the First Board of Trustees as suggested by the Patil Group in their schemes are not independent members and should not be appointed.
33. The Senior Advocate Mr. R. N. Dhorde instructed by Advocate Mr. V. S. Kadam for petitioners in WP No.16/2024 relied on the following Judgments : -
1. Fakir Mohamed Abdul Razak vs. The Charity Commissioner, Bombay and Others, reported in AIR 1976 Bombay 304,
2. Dr. R. P. Kapoor and others vs. T he Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State and others, reported in AIR 1989 Bombay 274,
3. Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar and Others vs. Jayawant @ Babasaheb s/o Vishwanath Uttarwar and Others, reported in 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 253,
4. Jagjeet Singh Gurusharan Singh and Others vs. Alka Sahani and Others, reported in 2022 (1) Mh.L.J. 104,
5. Digambar Pralhad Jot and Others vs. Satyanarayan Biharilal Zunzunwala and Others, reported in AIR 1978 Bombay
196.
34. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh for Page 40 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
petitioners in WP No.1571/2024, has made similar submissions and are not reproduced to avoid duplicity and he relied upon the following Judgments : -
1. Digambar Jot and others vs. Satyanarayan Zunzunwala and others, reported in AIR 1978 Bombay 196 (DB),
2. Managing Committee Khalsa Middle School and another vs. Smt. Mohindar Kaur and another, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 26,
3. People Education Societies and otehrs vs. Shri. Mansing S. Moray and others, reportred in (2015) 6 Bom CR 786.
35. The learned Advocate Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar holding for Advocate Mr. S. K. Chavan for the petitioners in WP No.15/2024 relied on the following Judgments : -
1. Shri V. V. Peshwa and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 1996(1) All MR 102,
2. Prafullkumar Suresh Kuhite and Ohers vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Others, reported in 2019(6) Mh.L.J.
296.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS :
36. Per contra, the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for Page 41 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
the respondents Patil Group's are overlapping and the basic challenge to the petition are as under :-
(a) The petitioners have no locus to challenge the order of the Charity Commissioner passed under Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
(b) This Court cannot exercise its power under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an order passed by the Charity Commissioner which is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Charity Commissioner and in exercise of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(c) Since the satisfaction of the Charity Commissioner is subjective, the same cannot be interfered under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
37. In addition to this, the common submissions raised by the respondents. The learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Adwant for respondent / Shivaji Namdevrao Kakde, submitted that the scheme submitted by the founder members was not traversed by the petitioners herein, as such, they cannot now in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court challenge the same and raise argument against the scheme submitted by the founder members.
Page 42 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
38. The learned Advocate Mr. Adwant for respondents has also submitted that in view of Article 19 (c) of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Damyanti Naranga (Supra), no members can be foisted upon the Trust, and as such, the petitioners have no right to impose them upon the Trust. As regards the allegations made against the founder members, he submits that there is no proof as contemplated under the Indian Evidence Act to make allegation against the founder members. It is merely production of newspaper cuttings and some digital evidence without support of the necessary certificate under the Evidence Act.
39. The learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Adwant relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Lalita Panjabrao Phalke vs. Jeevan Tulshiram Phalke, reported in 2023 (6) Mh.L.J. 619, at paragraphs No.25 to 29 which reads as under : -
"25. It is necessary to reiterate here that, to form an association is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. It is a settled law that the right to form an association necessarily implies that the persons forming the association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. In this regard, I am supported by the following authorities."Page 43 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
"26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1971 SC 966, while dealing with an issue about the right to form association, has observed thus :
"6. It was argued that the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) is only to form an association and, consequently, any regulation of the affairs of the Association, after it has been formed, will not amount to a breach of that right. It is true that it has been held by this Court that, after an Association has been formed and the right under Art.19 (1)(c) has been exercised by the members forming it, they have no right to claim that its activities must also be permitted to be carried on in the manner they desire.
Those cases are, however, inapplicable to the present case. The Act does not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of the Society; what it does is to alter the composition of the Society itself as we have indicated above. The result of this change in composition is that the members, who voluntarily formed the Association, are now compelled to act in that Association with other members who have been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership, they had no say. Such alteration in the composition of the Association itself clearly interferes with the right to continue to function as members of the Association which was voluntarily formed by the original founders. The right to form an association, in our opinion, necessarily implies that the persons forming the Association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they Page 44 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
voluntarily admit in the Association. Any law, by which members are Introduced in the voluntary Association without any option being given to the members to keep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association. If we were to accept the submission that the right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(c) is confined to the initial stage of forming an Association and does not protect the right to continue the Association with the membership, either chosen by the founders or regulated by rules made by the Association itself, the right would be meaningless because, as soon as an Association is formed, a law may be passed interfering with its composition, so that the Association formed may not be able to function at all. The right can be effective only if it is held to include within it the right to continue the Association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the Association. This aspect was recognised by this Court, though not in plain words, in the case of G.K.Ghosh and Another v. E.X. Joseph (1963) Supp 1 SCR 789 = (AIR 1963SC 812) ...".
"27. This Court in the case of Karvenagar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1989 Bombay 392, and in the case of Rajaram Bapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar ..vs.. Commissioner of Sugar, reported in 2006(5) Bom.C.R. 537, has followed the judgment in the case of Smt. Damayanti Naranga (supra)."Page 45 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
"28. From the above referred observations, it is evident that the Joint Charity Commissioner cannot foist any member on the trust because the right to become a member is to be determined by the managing body of the trust in accordance with the constitution of the trust otherwise it would alter the composition of the trust itself. The result of such change in composition would that the trustees who formed the trust are compelled to act in that trust with other trustees who have been imposed as trustees and in whose admission to membership they had no say."
"29. It is further evident that right to form an association necessarily implies that a persons forming the association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law, by which members are introduced in the voluntary association without any option being given to the members to keep them out or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association."
40. The learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Adwant for respondents relied upon the following Judgments : -
1. Mahomed Ismail Arif and others vs. Hajee Ahmed Moolla Dawoodand others, reported in AIR 1916 PC 132,
2. Ramswaroop Sunderlal Goyal vs. North India Association, decided on 29/04/2013, in First Appeal No.15 of 2013, Page 46 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
3. State of U.P. and others vs. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees' Cooperative Society Ltd. And others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 681,
4. Subhash Behar and etc. vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2009) 2 All LJ 208,
5. Lalita Panjabrao Phalke vs. Jeevan Tulshiram Phalke, reported in 2023 (6) Mh.L.J. 619,
6. Smt. Damyanti Naranga vs. The Union of India and Others, reported in 1971 (1) Supreme Court Cases 678,
7. Rajaram Bapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karbhana Ltd. And Anr. vs. Commissioner of Sugar and Ors., reported in (2006) 5 Bom CR 537,
8. Supreme Court Bar Association and Others vs. B. D. Kaushik, reported in (2011) 13 Sureme Court Cases 774,
9. Bharat Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 534,
10. Union of India vs. Rajendra N. Shah and Another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 474.
41. The learned Advocate Mr. D. J. Choudhari for respondent/ Vitthalrao Govindrao Bhosle has submitted that the seven members are appointed as trustees from the family of one Mr. Bharose and as such there should be no grievance raised by the Bharose Group against the Page 47 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
other trustees appointed.
The learned Advocate Mr. D. J. Chaudhari for respondents relied upon the following Judgments : -
1. Gurunatharudhaswami Guru Shidharudhaswami vs. Bhimappa Gangadharappa Divate and Another, reported in 1948 AIR (PC) 214,
2. Mohomed Ismail Arif and others vs. Hajee Ahed Moola Dawood and Others, reported in 1916 SCC PC 28,
3. Lalita Panjabrao Phalke vs. Jeevan Tulshiram Phalke, reported in 2023 (6) Mh.L.J. 619,
4. V. Prakash @ G.N.V. Prakash vs. M/s P.S.Govindaswamy Naidu and Sons Charities Represented by its Managing Trustee and Ors., (Civil Appeal No.3791/2022), Supreme Court.
42. The learned Advocate Mr. N. B. Khandare for respondent /Vedprakash Kashirao Patil who led the arguments on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable in absence of legal right and vis-a-vis locus standi. If the writ petitions are based on non-existing claim of membership they cannot be entertained. The petitioners are strangers to the Trust and cannot claim appointment as of right. He has further submitted that the order of the Charity Commissioner is reasonable and based on the reasons and no interference Page 48 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
is called for. He submits that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only for correcting of jurisdictional error and that the Charity Commissioner has not committed any jurisdictional error. All persons including the petitioners have been given proper opportunity of hearing. The petitioners cannot as of right get appointment to the First Board of Trustees and the facts findings arrived at is not open to challenge in the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
43. The learned Advocate Mr. N. B. Khandare for respondent/ Vedprakash Kashirao Patil has also submitted that the member/trustees who has been appointed on the First Board of Trustees cannot challenge the appointment of other members appointed on the First Board of Trustees.
44. The learned Advocate Mr. N. B. Khandare relied upon the following Judgments referred below to contend that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the impugned order.
45. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, reported in 1976 AIR (SC) 578, paragraph No.27 and 29 reads as under : -
Page 49 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, (1975) 2 SCC 703 = (AIR 1975 SC 2092), a Bench of seven learned Judges of this Court considered the question whether the Bar Council of a State was a person aggrieved to maintain an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates' Act, 1961. Answering the question in the affirmative, this Court, speaking through Ray C.J., indicated how the expression "person aggrieved" is to be interpreted in the context of a statute, thus :
"The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the statute. One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved". Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved"
is sometimes given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more liberal approach is required in the back ground of statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality. The role of the Bar Council under the Advocates' Act is comparable to the role of a guardian in professional ethics. The words "person aggrieved" in Sections 37 and 38 of the Act are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restricted interpretation of possession or denial of legal rights or burdens or financial interests." Page 50 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
"29..........The words person aggrieved do not really means a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrong fully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something."
46. In Mateshwari Agro Chemicals vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 4442,, paragraph No.23, 24, and 25 reads as under : -
"23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai [supra] has laid down the following tests to ascertain the 'locus standi' of the writ petitioner to apply for certiorari as under :
a] Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed ?
b] Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest, recognised by law, has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of ? c] Is he a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something ?Page 51 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
d] Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public ? E] Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action ? f] If so, was he prejudicially afected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority ?
g] Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words "person aggrieved" is being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conducted for the community ? H] Or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals ?"
"24. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0939/2012 the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of locus for invoking writ jurisdiction has held at para nos.7 and 8 as under :
7. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfes the Authority / Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffer, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the Appellant that there has Page 52 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the Appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta MANU/SC/0012/1951 : AIR 1951 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0110/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcultta Gas Vo. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors MANU/SC/0063/1962 : AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/ SC/0690/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C.Sekar and Ors.MANU/SC/8375/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC
784)"
"8. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of Page 53 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide : Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York MANU/SC/0017/1974 : AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0370/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 1361)."
"25. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. The relief prayed in writ petition, must be one to enforce a "legal right". A "legal right" means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. The legal right is an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law."
47. The learned Advocate Mr. N. B. Khandare for respondent relied upon the following Judgments : -
1. Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181,
2. M/s Puri Investments vs. M/s Young Friends and Co. And Ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279, Page 54 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
3. Bhubaneshwar Development Authority and Another vs. Adikanda Biswal and Others, reported in 2012 (11) SCC 731,
4. Abdul Razak (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors., reported in 2010 (2) SCC 432,
5. Sameer Suresh Gupta through Pa Holder vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 374,
6. Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia, reported in 2018 (2) SCC 87,
7. Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329,
8. Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675,
9. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, reported in 1976 AIR (SC) 578,
10. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568,
11. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others, reported in (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 407,
12. Mateshwari Agro Chemicals vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 4442, Page 55 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
13. Janabai w/o Gondu Mahajan vs. District Co-operative Election Authority and Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik and Others, reported in 2023 (3) Mh.L.J. 386,
14. Anand Sharadchandra Oka vs. University of Mumbai and Others, reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 217,
15. A. M. Yusuf vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Others, reported in 2009 (2) Bom.C.R. 649,
16. Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab and Others, reported in (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 343,
17. Arun Yashwant Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2021 (4) Mh.L.J. 613.
48. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Sapkal for respondent Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Ghubde, similarly submitted on the ground of locus and the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere petitions with the order of the Charity Commissioner under Article 226 an 227 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that the respondent/ Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Ghubde is an independent person and a lady candidate belonging to a Special Category and has done the job of Nurse in the area and is involved in the public works, and as such, as a lady member is required on the Trust who is interested in the social work and she has been accepted and that no fault can be found in accepting her as a member. Page 56 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
The learned Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Sapkal relied upon the following Judgments : -
1. Bipinchandra Purshottamdas Patel vs. Jashwant Lalbhai Naik and Anr., reported in AIR 1974 Gujarat 129,
2. Gurunatharudhaswami Guru Shidharudhaswami vs. Bhimappa Gangadharappa Divate and Another, reported in 1948 AIR (PC) 214,
3. Anjuman Islamia through Zahur Uddin vs. Latafat Ali and other, reported in AIR 1950 Allahabad 109,
4. Narayan Krishnaji vs. Anjuman E. Islami, reported in AIR 1952 Mysore 14,
5. Mohomed Ismail Ariff and Others vs. Ahmed Moolla Dawood and another, reported in 1916 AIR (PC) 132,
6. Shrimati Shanti Devi and Another vs. State and Others, reported in AIR 1982 Delhi 453,
7. Bapugouda Yadgouda Patil and Ors. vs. Vinayak Sadashiv Kulkarni and Ors., reported in AIR 1941 Bombay 317,
8. Ramswaroop Sunderlal Goyal vs. North India Association, reported in 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 239,
9. Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd Mustaqim and Others, reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38,
10. Sugarbai M. Siddiq vs. Ramesh S. Hankare, reported in Page 57 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
2001 AIR (SCW) 4072,
11. Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estates Private Limited, reported in 2001 AIR (SC) 3295,
12. Ouseph Mathai and others vs. M. Abdul Khadir, reported in 2002 AIR (SC) 110,
13. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. vs. Bikartan Das and Ors., reported in 2023 (11) Scale 93,
14. Smt. Lalita Panjabrao Phalke and Ors. vs. Shri Jeevan Tulshiram Phalke and Ors., decided on 03/05/2023 in Second Appeal No.191/2011 with Second Appeal No.192/2011 (Coram :
Mr. Anil S. Kilor, J.)
49. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Hon appearing for respondent/Dr. Pramod Uttamrao Shinde has submitted that he is appearing for an independent trustee and that he is well qualified to be the trustee and that discretion is exercised by the Charity Commissioner in his appointment on the First Board of Trustees and that no interference is called for.
The learned Senior Advocate Mr. V. D. Hon for respondent relied upon the following Judgments :-
1. The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State vs. Hirjibhoy Mancherji Kavarana, reported in AIR 1972 Bom. 229, Page 58 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
2. Sundarambal Ammal and Another vs. Yogavanagurukkal, reported in AIR 1915 Madras 561,
3. Tirathdas Dharamdas and Another vs. Sh.
Parmeshwaribai w/o Kundanmal, reported in AIR 1943 Sind 223,
4. Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181.
CONSIDERATION :
50. From the above submissions, the following issues arises for consideration : -
(1) Whether the petitioners have locus to challenge the scheme formulated under Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act ?
(2) Whether this Court in exercise of its power under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the framing of scheme under Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act by the Charity Commissioner and also in the appointment of the First Board of Trustees ?
(3) Whether in the fact situation the appointment of First Board of Trustees is in the interest of the Trust ?
(4) Whether the petitioners in WP No.15/2024 can seek their appointment and fastened themselves upon the Trust Page 59 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
in view of Article 19 (c) of the Constitution of India and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damyanti Naranga (Supra) ?
51. On the point of locus of the petitioners to challenge the scheme formulated under Section 50A of the Act, it is necessary to examine the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the Charity Commissioner in formulating the scheme under Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act .
52. The Charity Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 50A of the Act, acts as a custodian of the charity. It is well settled by the catena of Judgments that the Charity Commissioner is the main protector of the public trust and the guardian custodian of the properties of the public trust. The orders passed by the Charity Commissioner under Section 50A of the Act are in rem in view of Section 50A (4) of the Act. The Judgment of Charity Commissioner is in rem and the interest of all the parties in formulating the scheme under Section 50A of the Act is deemed to have been considered and decided by legal fiction. Although all the parties may not have participated in the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner everyone interested in the subject matter has a right to challenge the Judgment of Charity Commissioner. Page 60 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Thus every person who is interested in the Trust and also the beneficiary of the Trust can challenge the decree of the Charity Commissioner in terms of Section 50A (3) and (4) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Thus, in the instant case, the scheme formulated by the Charity Commissioner, the locus to challenge the scheme before this Court could be to all the persons who are affected by the decree and who are interested in the Trust or the beneficiary of the Trust.
53. While interpreting the words "person having interest" in Section 2 (10) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Digambar Pralhad Jot (Supra) at paragraph No.2, 7 and 8 observed as under : -
"2. It appears from the record that the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 filed an application under Sections 50 and 50A of the Act before the Charity Commissioner, Bombay, which was later on forwarded to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. In the said application these respondents alleged that they are the donors of the registered public trust run under the name and style of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal of Akot, referred to hereinafter as the Mandal, According to them, they are the persons interested in the Trust as they are the donors and their wards are also studying in the school run by the Trust. In the said application they had made several averments and allegations, including the allegation regarding certain Page 61 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
irregularities in the management of the Trust as well as mishandling of the funds thereof. It was also contended by them that 19 persons had applied for the membership of the Mandal but their applications were rejected arbitrarily. It was also their grievance that the list of the members was not prepared prior to the election of the new Managing Body and the defaulters were allowed to participate in the election. Thus they challenged the election to the Managing Body itself. They have further claimed removal of the trustees and the declaration that the election held was illegal. Among other allegations it was also contended in the application that the Managing Body has not complied with the direction given by the authorities and the management showed favouritism in the matter of employment. According to them, the Mandal and the Managing Body were totally unmindful of the interest of the education of students and they have also failed to comply with the policy laid down by the Government in the matters of employment of the persons belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. It was further contended by the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 that they should be enrolled as members of the Mandal and the election held on 18 th March 1971 should be declared as illegal. On these allegations they sought permission to file a suit under Section 50 of the Act. They had also prayed for appointment of new trustees and settlement of a scheme for the trust and such other reliefs as the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
"7. So far as the first contention raised by Shri Badiye namely, that the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 had no locus standi Page 62 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
to file an application under section 51 of the Act, is concerned, in our opinion, on the basis of the material placed before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, he was right in coming to the conclusion that the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 were the persons having interest in the Trust. Section 2 (10) of the Act defines the phrase "Person having interest" in the following terms:
"2 (10) "Person having interest" includes-
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) .....
(d) in the case of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, any member of such society, and
(e) in the case of any other public trust, any trustee or beneficiary."
Initially in this definition clause in place of the word 'includes' the word 'means' was used by the Legislature. The word 'includes' was substituted by Bombay Act No. 28 of 1953. It is well settled that the word 'include' in the interpretation clause is intended to be enumerative and not exhaustive. It has an extending force and it does not limit the meaning of the term to the substance of the definition. When it is intended to exhaust the signification of the words interpreted, the word 'means' is used: -- See Chandrabhagabai Ashtekar v. State oil Bombay (1958 Nag LJ J72)."
Page 63 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
"8. In this context we may also make a reference to often quoted observations of Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Commr. of Stamps (1899 A C 99) which are as under :
"The word "include" is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include."
This intention of the Legislature is further clear from the substitution of the word 'includes' for the word 'means' by Bombay Act No. 28 of 1953. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the definition of the phrase "person having interest" is not exhaustive. In the present case having regard to the facts and circumstances brought on record it is not necessary to consider the wider question, because the Deputy Charity Commissioner has found as a fact that the respondents nos. 1 to 12 had applied for the membership of the trust and it is their allegation that their request was not allowed by the petitioners on account of some ulterior motive. He further found that the averments made in the application by the applicants before him that they were the donors of the Trust in question were not categorically denied by the petitioners, From the record it further appears that some of the trustees, namely, non- applicants Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19 to the original Page 64 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
application had filed their reply stating that they support the application. Such a reply was filed by them on 26th September 1971 before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The Deputy Charity Commissioner has made a specific reference to this reply filed by those trustees and, therefore, taking a cumulative view of the whole material placed before him he came to the conclusion that the applicants before him, namely, the respondent Nos. 1 to 12, were the persons having interest in the Trust......"
54. The decree passed under Section 50A (4) of the Act have effect of a scheme settled under decree of the Court under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is akin to Section 50 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
55. The decree of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50A of the Act is in rem and in this regard reference can be made to Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in case of Anjuman Islamia through Zahur Uddin (Supra), at paragraphs No.29, 30, 31 and 32 as under : -
"29. There are, however, authorities which lay down that a judgment in a suit under Section 92 binds the entire world. For example, a Bench of this Court stated in Surajgir v. Brahmanarain, A. I. R. (33) 1946 ALL. 148 at p. 149: (I. L. R. (1946) ALL. 107) :
"Their Lordships said that a scheme framed under Section 92, Civil P. C., was binding on everyone, (whether a Page 65 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
worshipper or not) including even one who might have claimed an hereditary trusteeship and have brought a suit to enforce such a right before the settlement of the scheme. And they said, moreover, that a decree framing a scheme was a bar to a suit by such a person, even though the denial of such a right of suit might act prejudicially to his interest and even though his application to be made a party to the suit in which the scheme was framed had previously been rejected. That, we think, is exactly the position here."
"30. A Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of Hasanullah Khan, (A. I. R. (35) 1948 Mad, 134: I. L. R. (1948) Mad. 257) (supra), took the same view and held that a charitable scheme settled by Court must be considered to have been settled for the benefit of the public."
"31. Under the English law, the judgment would be a judgment in-rem which is defined as, "an adjudication pronounced, as its name indeed denotes, upon the status of some particular subject-matter, by a tribunal having competent authority for that purpose."
This definition has met with criticism. Taylor, remarks in his "Treatise on Evidence, vol. 2, 10th Edn. p. 1205, that "it is not an absolutely perfect definition though it is sufficient for all practical purposes." There is an exhaustive criticism of the definition in Yarakallamma v. Naramma, 2 M.H.C.R. 276. It also received- criticism at the hands of Peacock, C. J. in Kanhaiya Lal v. Radha Page 66 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Charan, 7 W. R. 388 : (Beng. L. R. Sup. vol.662). Phipson in his book on Evidence, 8th Edn., p. 402, quotes the definition that a judgment in rem is a "judgment by a Court having special jurisdiction over the subject-matter; Provided it alters status.
32. Bower defines a judgment in rem as one which "declares, defines, or otherwise determines the status of a person, or of a thing, that is to say, the jural relation of the person, or thing, to the world generally." (See Bower on Res judicata, p. 132.) According to one or more of these definitions the judgment in a suit under Section 92, Civil P. C., appointing a particular person as mutwalli, would be a judgment in rem. It would be so because it confers a status upon a person as against the world. The whole Muslim public is interested in a public waqf and when a certain person is appointed its mutwalli, the status is conferred upon him as against the entire world. It is not possible to conceive of him as mutwalli as against the actual parties in the suit and as anything but a mutwalli as against the rest of the world. The principle underlying a judgment in rem is that the entire world may be regarded as a party to the suit in which it was pronounced ; see the case of Yarakalamma v. Naramma, 2 M. H. C. R. 276, Ubi Supra, at pp. 282 and 287. Bower on Res judicata at p. 133, and Bigelow on Estoppel, 6th Edn., p. 47. The principle stated by Phipson at p. 403.
"As regards persons is, that public policy for the peace of society requires that matters of social status should not be left in Page 67 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
continual doubt ; and as regards things, that, generally speaking, everyone who can be affected by the decision may protect his interests by becoming a party to the proceedings."
The public should not be left in any doubt as to who is the mutwalli of a waqf and a District Judge is given the power under Section 92, Civil P. C., not only to declare that a person is a mutwalli but also ipso facto to render him as mutwalli. The District Judge not only declared the plaintiff as mutwalli, but actually made it a mutwalli. The nearest approach to a judgment appointing a person as mutwalli in a suit under Section 92 is a judgment of a Court of probate appointing a particular person as administrator of an estate. Such a judgment is binding upon the entire world not only according to the English law (vide Bigelow on Estoppel, 6th Edn. p. 256) but also according to Section 41, Evidence Act. Another analogous judgment is one appointing a guardian of a minor's estate ; so long as that judgment stands unreversed it constitutes a full warrant for the demand and collection by the appointee of debts due to the minor (ibid, p.
258). Under the English law, therefore, the judgment appointing the plaintiff as mutwalli, would certainly be one in rem."
56. Undoubtedly in the instant case, the petitioners who have filed the writ petitions, have either filed it on the ground that they are interested in the appointment of First Board of Trustees as they are better suited and have contributed to the funds of the Trust and are interested in the betterment of the Trust or have challenged the appointment of the First Page 68 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Board of Trustees as they have participated in the betterment of the Trust or has voluntarily contributed to the Trust, and some of the writ petitioners have a claim of membership over the Trust. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the scheme and the appointment of First Board of Trustees by the impugned order of the Charity Commissioner.
57. The Judgments relied upon by the petitioners, more particularly by Mr. N. B. Khandare for respondent/ Dr.Vedprakash Kashirao Patil relates to the challenge of private rights between the private persons or private persons and the State and deal with right in personam. However, in the instant case as the Judgment is in rem, any person who is interested in the Trust or who is a beneficiary of the Trust, can challenge the decree passed under Section 50A of the Act. The Judgment is not merely between two private parties, as such, the first argument that the petitioners, more particularly in WPs. No.16/2024, 15/2024, 1571/2024 have no locus to challenge the scheme formulated under Section 50A of the Act, is rejected.
58. Now coming to the merits of the case, perusal of the order of the Charity Commissioner would indicate that the draft schemes were given Page 69 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
by the three founder members and also by Bharose Group. The Charity Commissioner also appointed an Advocate to independently assist him in preparing the scheme. There were various points for discussion before the Charity Commissioner. In all 57 points were raised before the Charity Commissioner, of which there was consensus on most of the points barring five which are quoted as under :--
"a. Categories of membership.
b. total members of General Body for calling requisition meeting.
c. Criteria for the first Board of Trustees. d. Composition and office bearers of the Board of Trustees.
e. Tenure of Board of Trustees."
59. Thus, there was consensus among the Patil Group and Bharose Group on substantial points except above five matters. There is no consensus on the appointment of First Board of Trustees. As far as the scheme is concerned, there is no challenge except the power of the President and the Secretary to be overlapping to the extent of calling of the meetings.
60. The substantial challenge in the present petitions is to the appointment of the First Board of Trustees. Clause 8 of the Trust Page 70 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Scheme reads as under : -
"8. First Board of Trustees For Framing Of This Scheme The founder members, the persons who have contributed to the development and who will contribute for overall development of the Trust in future are the First Board of Trustees as mentioned in Annexure-'B'."
61. The first board of trustees consist of (1) the founder members (2) persons who have contributed to the development and (3) who will contribute for overall development of the trust in future. The first board of trustees appointed are as under : -
Sr. Name Age Qualification Occupation Fact of suitability No. 1 Shri Keshavraoji Age 78 B.Sc.(Agri) Agriculture Donated land Dhondji Bharose R/o years and Social admeasuring 3.5 Parbhani (Scheme Work Acre to the said Exh.108) Society. Donated Rs.16,000/- on 07/01/1991 to the said trust. Paid Rs.1000/- on 07/02/1984 and Rs.7200/- on 10/02/1985 2 Shri Parmeshwar Age 70 M.Com. Agriculture Paid Rs.6701/- on Narayan Dake, R/o years B.Ed. and 02/01/1986 and Yeshwant Nagar, pensioner Rs.5300/- on Khanapur Phata, (Retired as 01/04/1987 Parbhani (Scheme Professor) Exh.108) 3 Shri Shivaji Bajirao Age 65 B.A., LL.B. Advocate Paid Rs.5000/- on Page 71 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Aher, R/o Shivaji years 08/01/1996
Nagar, Parbhani
(Scheme Exh.108)
4 Shri Honajirao Age 67 M.Tech. Retired IAS Son-in-law of Shri
Kishanrao Jawale, years (Food Sheshrao Bharose.
R/o Shivram Nagar, Sciences) Paid Rs.14000/- on
Vasmath Road, 29/11/1994
Parbhani. (Scheme
Exh.130)
5 Dr. Laxman Age 59 M.Sc. (Agri.) Agriculture/ Paid Rs.17000/- on
Narayanrao Jawale, years Ph.D. Service 10/05/196
R/o Ramkrushna
Nagar, Near Navasya
Maroti Mandir,
Vasmath Road,
Parbhani. (Scheme
Exh.130)
6 Shri Pandurang Age 65 M.A., B.Ed. Agriculture Paid Rs.5001/- on
Namdevrao Aher, years and 11/12/1985,
R/o Yashwant Nagar, Pensioner Rs.4001/- on
Khanapur Phata, (Retired 02/06/1986 and
Vasmath Road, Professor) Rs.1500/- on
Parbhani. (Scheme 06/07/1988
Exh.130)
7 Smt. Mahananda Age 70 S.S.C., Pensioner Paid Rs.5100/- on
Narayan Shiradkar, years D.Ed. (Retired as 04/10/1986 and
R/o Bhagya Laxmi Head Rs.9600/- on
Nagar (Ramkrushna Master) 02/05/1991
Nagar), Vasmath
Road, Parbhani.
(Scheme Exh.130)
8 Shri Vedprakash Age 81 M.Sc. (Agri.) Ex-Vice Founder Vice-
Kashirao Patil, R/o years (Merit Chancellor President of said
Torana, Plot No.138, Second), and trust, Vast
Shivaji nagar, LL.B. (Merit Academi- experience
Parbhani. (Scheme Third), Ph.D. cian
Exh.33) (First Class)
9 Dr. Vikram vilasrao Age 43 MBBS, DCH, Doctor Independent, highly
Patil, R/o Gajanan years, FCPS qualified, experience
Nagar, Karegaon in profession in
Road, Ner Canal, Doctor.
Parbhani. (Children
Specialist) (Schjeme
Exh.33)
Page 72 of 88
22nd April 2024
Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
10 Shri Shivaji Age 73 B.Sc. Retd. Desk Founder Member, Namdevrao Kakde, years (Hons.), officer, highly qualified, R/o Krushi Sarthi LL.B. Registrar vast experience.
Colony, Vasmath office,
Road, Parbhani. VNKV
(Scheme Exh.33) University,
Parbhani.
11 Shri Vitthalrao Age 79 M.V.Sc. Retd. Founder member of
Govindrao Bhosle, years professor said trust, vast
R/o Wadona, Tq. experience
Udgir, Dist. Latur
(Scheme Exh.35)
12 Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Age 52 B.Sc. Nurse Woman,
Ghubde, R/o Harsh years Nursing Age, Nurse,
Nagar Parbhani. qualification,
(Scheme Exh.35) service.
13 Dr. Shri Chandrakant Age 45 M.V.Sc., Doctor Independent, highly
N. Galdhar, R/o years Ph.D., qualified,
Vikas Nagar, DMRIT, RSO experience, service.
Parbhani. (Scheme
Exh.75)
14 Shri Pramod Age 48 MBBS, MD. Dean Age, qualification,
Uttamrao Shinde, years service and
R/o Padegaon, designation.
Parbhani. (Scheme
Exh.75)
15 Shri Pradhan Age 50 B.A. MSW. Social Age, qualification,
Prakash Kundlikrao, years Service social service.
R/o Dhar Road,
Parbhani (Scheme
Exh.75)
62. Out of above 15 trustees, following are the persons appointed as office bearers : -
Sr.No. Name of the Office Bearers Designation 1 Shri Vedprakash Kashirao Patil President 2 Shri Honajirao Kishanrao Jawale Vice-President 3 Shri Pandurang Namdevrao Aher Secretary Page 73 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
4 Shri Pradhan Prakash Kundlikrao Joint Secretary 5 Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Ghubde Treasurer Comparative study of first board of trustees : -
Sr. Scheme at Submitted by Appointed Designated No Exhibit Trustees Officers .
1 Exh-33 Dr. V. K. Patil 3 Trustees President 2 Exh-35 S. N. Kakde 2 Trustees Treasurer 3 Exh-75 Dr. V. G. Bhosle 3 Trustees Joint Secretary 4 Exh-108 Shri Anand Bharose 3 Trustees --- 5 Exh-130 Mr. Anand Vairagar 4 Trustees 1 Vice Principle 1 Secretary 6 Intervenors Respondent s No.179 to 182
63. The Charity Commissioner considered all the above 15 persons for the trusteeship for the following reasons. Mr. Keshavraoji Dhondji Bharose is the brother of Shesherao Bharose and that he is gifted 3.5 Acres land to the Sanjivani Education Society on which the building is constructed. The remaining members of the Bharose Group have donated amounts to the trust. That the donations at initial period were utilized for the construction of the educational Trust. There are more number of donors but looking into the maximum number on board of trustees, the Page 74 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
remaining donors are not considered for selection on First Board of Trustees.
64. Three founder members are considered on the basis of their initiate support in the Trust. It is noted that Shesherao Bharose was the sole person who was managing the administration of the Trust and that he submitted the change report and audit reports. The Charity Commissioner has further observed that since last 20 years the rival groups are fighting against each other. The Charity Commissioner held that it is necessary to induct independent persons who are qualified having experience, hence the remaining five members are appointed as trustees.
65. The Charity Commissioner has observed that, looking at the bio- data of five persons, they are highly qualified from various universities, different types of collages, administration and government services, IAS Officers, doctor, Advocate, social services persons, retired persons from other collages, being Headmaster. All these are independent persons and will develop the Trust in future.
66. As far as office bearers of the first board of trustees Mr. Vedprakash Keshav Patil is appointed as the President, Mr. Honajirao Kishanrao Jawale Page 75 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
is appointed as Vice President, Mr. Pandurang Namdevrao Aher is appointed as Secretary, Mr. Pradhan Prakash Kundlikrao is appointed as Joint Secretary and Mrs. Asha Bhagwan Ghubde is appointed as Treasurers. The Charity Commissioner has given various reasons to appoint the office bearers and the remaining persons are left as proposed members because it is not possible to accommodate the other persons who are having qualification and experience. The tenure of the board is accepted as five years.
67. From the above it is to be noticed that on the First Board of Trustees 7 members who have contributed to the Trust are appointed, 3 founder members are appointed and 5 independent members are appointed as suggested in the scheme given by the founder members i.e. the 'Patil Group'. The Charity Commissioner has not called for applications of independent members but has selected the same from the names suggested by the founder members in their scheme.
68. Although the Charity Commissioner has held that it necessary to appoint independent persons who are qualified and having experience and pursuant thereto he has appointed five trustees, the Charity Commissioner failed to appreciate that the five trustees appointed as Page 76 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
independent trustees are suggested by the Patil Group as trustees in the scheme filed by them and the five trustees recommended by the Patil Group has obvious allegiance to the Patil Group and would act against the Bharose Group on account of rivalry between the two groups. The appointment of trustees from the scheme filed by the Patil Group cannot be termed as appointment of independent persons. The Charity Commissioner ought to have called for independent applications and chosen independent person not belonging to either Patil Group or Bharose Group. Once it is noted by the Charity Commissioner that independent persons are necessary, he ought to chosen five persons independently and not from the schemes suggested by the Patil Group. The independent trustees suggested by the Patil Group owes its allegiance to the Patil Group.
69. From perusal of the list of 15 trustees appointed, it is to be further noticed that seven members are appointed for having contributed to the Trust by gifting lands and money, three members are founder trustees and five are called as independent members for the benefit of the future of the Trust, in the following sequence : -
The first following 7 members are selected as they have contributed to Page 77 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
the Trust :
1. Keshavrao Dhondaji Bharose,
2. Parmeshwar Narayan Dake,
3. Shivaji Bajirao Aher,
4. Honajirao Kishanrao Jawale,
5. Dr. Laxman Narayanrao Jawale,
6. Pandurang Namdevrao Aher, and
7. Mahananda Narayan Shiradkar.
Following 3 are founder members :
1. Mr. Vedprakash Kashirao Patil (Chairman),
2. Shivaji Namdeorao Kakde, and
3. Vitthalrao Govindrao Bhosle.
And the remaining five members suggested by the founder members in the scheme at Exhibit 33, 35 and 75, are as under :-
1. Dr. Vikram Patil,
2. Mrs. Asha Ghubde,
3. Dr. Chandrakant Galdhar,
4. Mr. Pramod Shinde, and
5. Mr. Pradhan Prakash Kundlikrao.
70. The Charity Commissioner has failed to appoint independent members and by appointing the persons suggested by the Patil Group as independent members, there are no independent members in the First Board of Trustees. Both the groups are hostile to one another. The independent members on First Board of Trustees are required to Page 78 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
maintain balance in the functioning of the Trust and for the effective management of the Trust. It is not known how the above five independent trustees can be for the benefit of the Trust in future. It is also not known whether the above five trustees have ever done any act in the interest of the Trust in the past. By appointing the independent members from the 'Patil Group', it has given majority to the Patil Group in the First Board of Trustees. The situation which the Supreme Court wanted to avoid for proper management of the Trust is not achieved by the Charity Commissioner in appointing the First Board of Trustees.
71. The scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner provides for the appointment of members of the Trust and the decision to appoint members is to be taken by simple majority of the First Board of Trustees. Nothing is brought on record to show that the 3 founder members alive today, who were employees of the Marathwada Agricultural University at the time the Trust was formed and institutions of the Trust were established, have contributed in terms of land or money to the Trust. The Charity Commissioner by appointing the 5 independent trustees suggested by the Patil Group from the scheme submitted by them as independent trustees have give the entire management of the Trust to the Patil Group. Person who have not contributed to the Trust cannot be Page 79 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
given priority over the person who have contributed to the Trust.
72. The Charity Commissioner has thus failed to understand to purport the Judgment of the Supreme Court. The action of the Charity Commissioner as a custodian of the public charities and protector of the charities is to protect the charity and ensure clean management. He has heard both the groups and has vested the powers of management indirectly in the Patil Group and in the process has again kept the problems between the two rival groups alive. The Charity Commissioner has not exercised the jurisdiction vested him for the benefit of the management of the Trust in appointing the First Board of Trustees.
73. The primary duty of the Charity Commissioner is to consider the interest of the beneficiaries for whom the Trust is created and is duty bound to secure the best person in management of the Trust. In the case of Fakir Mohamed Abdul Razak (Supra), Principal Seat of this Court, at paragraph 35 has observed as under :-
"35. It is well settled that in suits like the suits for settling the Scheme, the Court has a duty once it is found that it is a Trust for public purposes, to consider what is best in the interests of public. Settling a scheme is one of the most important relieves relating to the administration of public trust. The primary duty of the Court is to consider the interest of the public for whose Page 80 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
benefit the trust has been created. It has large powers to frame suitable schemes in cases where trust has been created. It has large powers to frame suitable schemes in cases where trust property has been diverted from its proper purposes, and the objects of the trusts are not being carried out and the persons in management are not properly accounting for the realisation from the trust property or otherwise misconducting themselves. Further in settling a scheme for the administration of a charitable trust involving the appointment of trustees or managers, the Court is bound to secure persons whom it regards as suitable. A Court cannot abandon its duties lightly relying on mere statements of Advocates without placing any material on record to show who is who an what is what as was done by the learned District Judge in the present case."
74. In Narayan Krishnaji vs. Anjuman E. Islami (Supra), paragraph No.17 reads as under : -
17. 'For the appellants reliance has been placed on Mahomed Admji Peerbhoy v. Akbar Ally Abdul Hussain Admit Peerbhoy, AIR (21) 1934 (PC) 63, Mahomed Ismail Ariff v. Ahmed Mulla Dawood, 43 Cal 1085 (PC) and Gurunatharudhaswami v.
Bhimappa Gangadharappa, AIR. (35) 1948 PC 214 and a case of our Court in 53 Mys HCR 133 at p. 187 which lay down very clearly that the primary duty of the Civil Court in cases like the present is to consider the interest of the public for whose benefit the trust is created and that the Courts have got large powers to frame schemes and appoint proper trustees in cases where trust property has been diverted from its proper purpose and the Page 81 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
objects of the trust are cot being carried out and the trustees or persona in management are not properly accounting for the realisations from the trust property. In 53 Mys HCR 167 it was held referring to Sitharam Chetty v. Subramania Aiyar, 39 Mad 700 and Attorney-General v. Wyggeston Hospital, (1849) 60 ER 1003, that even the fact that there is a statutory body or committee which governs a charitable institution does not bar the jurisdiction of a Court to frame a scheme, because the Court is the ultimate protector of the charity and it is the inherent right of the Court always to intervene to safeguard and preserve the charity whenever it is necessary to do so; that the fact that the trustee is not guilty of breach of trust does not preclude the Court, from framing a scheme and that if the affairs of a charity are managed in such a matter which, is not beneficial to the institution, the Court can interfere and frame a scheme by giving direction as to its proper administration. Reliance has also been, placed by the appellants' counsel on a decision in Srinivasamoorthy v. Venkatavarada, 34 Mad 257 (PC), which lays down that, there can be no claim of adverse possession in such cases"
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, I hold that the Charity Commissioner has failed to protect the Trust from internal fight by the rival factions appointing persons suggested by one group as "independent person" for "future benefit of Trust" and has failed to exercise its jurisdiction for the protection of the Trust.Page 82 of 88
22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
75. The next question would arises as regards the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the order of the Charity Commissioner.
76. As regards the arguments that this Court in exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the order passed by the Charity Commissioner, it is to be noted that the Charity Commissioner so also this Court is the custodian and protector of the charities, and if it is found that the Charity Commissioner has not exercised the jurisdiction vested him for the benefit/ protection of the Trust, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, for the protection of the trust can interfere and take remedial actions. The protection of the Trust / charity is the prime consideration, and this Court would not withhold itself from the protection of the Trust on the principles of restrain of interference as would be applicable between two private individuals in the matters arising from quasi judicial orders. The arguments of restriction placed on this Court in interfering with the orders passed by the Charity Commissioner at the instance of the petitioners, so also this Court lacking jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the orders of the Page 83 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Charity Commissioner passed on the basis of subjective satisfaction is rejected.
77. Before completion, it is necessary to deal with the submission of learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Adwant that in view of the Judgment of the Damyanti Naranga (Supra), that the individuals have a fundamental right of association and it would continue to operate once the association is formed and no member can be foisted upon the association or a co-operative society formed by the association.
However, the First Board of Trustees which is appointed by the Charity Commissioner, is not an association of individuals, and every person who is interested in the Trust or is beneficiary of the Trust, would be entitled to apply before the Charity Commissioner for appointment of appropriate persons on First Board of Trustees. So also, the beneficiary of Trust can also challenge the appointment of the First Board of Trustees for not being in the interest of the Trust. Reliance in the Judgment of Damyanti Naranga (Supra) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is misplaced and the argument is rejected.
78. The next submission of learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Adwant, that the scheme submitted by him is not traversed by the petitioner, and as Page 84 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
such, the same cannot be challenged in the present writ petition is rejected for the simple reason that the Charity Commissioner does not exercise jurisdiction under Section 50A of the Act on the basis of scheme submitted by the members of the Trust and the scheme submitted are not pleadings, and rival contention of the parties that needs to be traversed, and in any event, the 'Bharose Group' has also submitted its own scheme.
79. There is no challenge to the 7 members appointed to the First Board of Trustees as contributors of the Trust. The challenge to the founder members also cannot be sustained as the fresh scheme provides for the same and mere allegations are not sufficient to disqualify them.
80. Thus, this Court passes final order as under :
(A) The appointment of the trustees (1) Dr.Vikram Patil, (2) Mrs. Asha Ghubde, (3) Dr.Chandrakant Galdhar, (4) Mr. Pramod Shinde and (5) Mr. Prakash Kundlikrao Pradhan is quashed and set aside.
(B) The Charity Commissioner is directed to appoint independent five trustees in place of the above removed trustees Page 85 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
within a period of six months. While selecting independent trustees, the Charity Commissioner should appreciate that the Trust exists for its beneficiaries and not for the Trustees. The newly inducted trustees/ independent trustees should be willing to spend time and money for the betterment of the Trust. The Trust is a charity and people who are willing to do charity and has interest of charity, should be preferred when independent trustees are to be appointed. The independent trustees should not be either from 'Bharose Group' or from 'Patil Group'. (C) The Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.2151/2023 by order dated 25/04/2023 had also directed as under : -
"12. Needless to state that since we have directed the Charity Commissioner, Bombay to frame a scheme afresh, all claims would be decided afresh, without being prejudiced by any of the earlier orders."
The Supreme Court has directed that the claim of 157 members to be decided afresh after the scheme is framed. Thus, the First Board of Trustees on being constituted after induction of independent members as directed above, could either on perusal of the record of 157 alleged members, either grant formal recognition to the members, or in the event if it is found, that they are not being enrolled as members, may consider their claims for membership along with other applicants on the criteria Page 86 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
fixed in the scheme formulated of the Charity Commissioner. The discretion for enrollment of members would be of the First Board of Trustees. In the event, the 157 members are aggrieved by the non recognition or non-grant of membership they would be entitled to take such recourse as available in law. (D) The Charity Commissioner is directed to complete the exercise within a period of six months.
(E) Until the Charity Commissioner inducts independent members, the present First Board of Trustees to continue its functioning along with disqualified trustees till the induction of 5 independent trustees as directed. However, the present First Board of Trustees would not be entitled to induct new members on the Trust or take policy decisions till the appointment of new independent trustees. The tenure of the First Board of Trustees after the induction of the independent trustees would expire after the period already stipulated and would be deemed to be commenced from the date of the present First Board of Trustees has taken charge.
(F) As regards Writ Petition No.662/2024, the Charity Commissioner has not taken the sons of the founder members on the First Board of Trustees. No interference is called for as it is in the discretion of the Charity Commissioner. However, this should not debar the petitioners/ sons of the trustees from being appointed as members, if found suitable by the First Board of Page 87 of 88 22nd April 2024 Suresh Janardhan Patange & Ors. v The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Connected Writ Petitions WP No.16 of 2024-J + 4.
Trustees or any subsequent Board of Trustees. There is no disqualification for the sons of trustees to be members of the Trust provided the Board of trustees are of the opinion that their induction is for beneficial interest of the Trust. (G) As regards Writ Petition No.801/2024, liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply as an independent member for his induction as one of the five independent members before the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner to decide his claim independently along with other applications that he may receive.
(H) With the above observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. All pending applications are disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) vj gawade/-.
Page 88 of 88
22nd April 2024