Gujarat High Court
Fatehsing Mangalbhai Parmar & 9 vs Joint Charity Commissioner & on 12 December, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/1333/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8860 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13338 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2014
================================================================
FATEHSING MANGALBHAI PARMAR & 9....Appellant(s)
Versus
JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 10
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 12/12/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1.This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. In the writ petition, the petitioners have challenged an interim order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodra under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Under such order dated 29.04.2013, the Page 1 of 5 C/LPA/1333/2014 ORDER Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara had provided for an interim formula, under which, the donation box of the temple, which was at the center of the controversy, would be opened between 1st and 5th day of every month. Detailed Rojkam of the same would be drawn. The collection would be deposited in the bank account of the Trust and the box would be resealed. All these would be done in the presence of the observer of the Charity Commissioner and the concerned parties and three independent witnesses. It would clarify that till all the issues are resolved, in order to maintain the accounts of the donations made by the people, in larger public interest such interim formula was provided.
2.We do not see in any manner why the appellants should be aggrieved by such directions. It only provides for transparent and orderly manner of collection and depositing of donations by the members of the public to the temple. Even learned counsel Mr. Majmudar for the appellants was unable to point out how the Page 2 of 5 C/LPA/1333/2014 ORDER appellants would be aggrieved by such directions. He, in fact, stated that even without these directions, the Trust was accounting for the full donations made by the members of the public and the accounts of the Trust were audited and submitted before the Charity Commissioner. If that be so, the directions issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner does not change any of these parameters. Counsel however submitted that the respondent No.2 herein who was the applicant before the Charity Commissioner is not a member of the Trust managing the temple. He, therefore, had no authority to file such an application. As recorded by the learned Single Judge there is no dispute about the Trust controlling the temple in question. Both sides claimed to be referring to the temple by different names. All these issues are pending before the competent authority/Court. At this stage, when we notice that the entire formula is innocuous and, in fact, provides for a greater transparency in collection and accounting of the donations, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Page 3 of 5 C/LPA/1333/2014 ORDER Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. However, it is clarified that mere entertainment of the application of respondent No.2 by the Joint Charity Commissioner or even the liberty granted to him to remain present at the time of opening of the donation box under the interim arrangement, would not, in any manner, establish his status as the trustee of a Trust managing the temple. These issues are independent and would be decided in due course in accordance with law. Nothing stated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement or by us in this order would come in way of either side in pursuing their case in this respect.
In view of dismissal of letters patent appeal, civil application does not survive. Hence, civil application is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Page 4 of 5 C/LPA/1333/2014 ORDER (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jyoti Page 5 of 5