Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Darshanbhai Jayantikumar Sevak vs Ravindrabhai Purshottamdas Upadhyay & on 12 September, 2014

Author: S.H.Vora

Bench: S.H.Vora

          C/SCA/9203/2014                           ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9203 of 2014

================================================================
           DARSHANBHAI JAYANTIKUMAR SEVAK....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
     RAVINDRABHAI PURSHOTTAMDAS UPADHYAY & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR C B UPADHYAYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MIHIR BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE with MR PC MASTER, ADVOCATE for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA

                            Date : 12/09/2014


                             ORAL ORDER

1. Challenge in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is order dated 16.5.2014 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.181 of 2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, whereby the learned Principal District Judge appointed one Mr. Birenbhai Deepakbhai Parikh as a trustee of the Dakor Temple Committee for a period of 10 years from the date of order in question under Clause 4(1) read with Clause 7 of the Dakor Temple Committee Scheme.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Sevak of the Dakor temple and he is also engaged in religious activities dedicated to Shri Ranchhodraiji Temple at Dakor and is one of Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/9203/2014 ORDER the disciples of the idol. The High Court of Bombay while settling the scheme in exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short "the Act"), was pleased to settle a scheme of administration of management of the Dakor temple on 12.9.1906. It is the case of the petitioner that initially, two trustees came to be appointed in the year 2003 for a tenure of 10 years i.e. upto 2013, namely Mr. G.T. Nanavati and Mr. P.K. Bhagat after considering their qualifications and social activities. As per say of the petitioner, due to efflux of time, two posts fell vacant and therefore, two trustees were required to be appointed. Accordingly, respondent No.1, in his capacity as a Manager of the Dakor Temple Committee, preferred an application before the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad in pursuance of the provisions of the Dakor Temple Committee Scheme based on resolution passed by the trust for appointment of only one trustee dated 17.10.2013. Such application came to be numbered as Civil Misc. Application No.181 of 2013. Upon receipt of said application being Civil Misc. Application No.181 of 2013, the learned District Judge issued public notice in Gujarat Samachar dated 31.10.2013. Pursuant to the said public notice, the petitioner, in his capacity as one of the beneficiaries and interested person, filed an application before the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad and proposed the name of one Mr. P.K. Bhagat. By way of said application, it was also submitted that appointment of Mr. P.K. Bhagat shall be considered as either renewal or as fresh appointment. Necessary documents and affidavits along with Biodata of Mr. P.K. Bhagat were placed before the learned District Judge. In all, 18 names were proposed.

Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/9203/2014 ORDER

3. After hearing all the concerned parties, the learned District Judge processed the candidature of all the applicants for the appointment of trustee of the Dakor Temple Committee. It is the case of the petitioner that pending hearing of the said Civil Misc. Application No.181 of 2013, the petitioner preferred an application below Exh.136 and prayed the learned District Judge to initiate suo motu proceedings for appointment of two trustees instead of one trustee. The said application came to be rejected on 16.1.2014 and as per the say of the petitioner, he has not carried out said order any further. It is the case of the petitioner that salient feature of the appointment of Mr. Birenbhai Deepakbhai Parikh of Ahmedabad was only and only on the basis of the certificate issued by family trust of Mr. Birenbhai Deepakbhai Parikh and therefore, the learned District Judge has appointed Mr. Birenbhai Deepakbhai Parikh without any justifiable reasons compared to other more qualified persons available for the appointment of trustee.

4. I have heard the submissions of learned advocate Mr. C.B. Upadhyay for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Mihir Bhatt for respondent State and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with learned advocate Mr. P.C. Master for respondent No.1 and examined the provisions contained the Dakor Temple Committee Scheme and also provisions contained in section 47 of the Act.

5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has no grievance qua appointment of process as to violation of any provisions of the Dakor Temple Committee Scheme. What is hurt to the petitioner is that though other qualified persons to Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/9203/2014 ORDER be appointed as trustees of the Dakor Temple were available for consideration, the learned District Judge has not considered the same. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned appellate Judge has taken into consideration the merits of the proposed trustees. It also appears that all the proposed trustees were given opportunity to lead any nature of evidence in support of their application and further were permitted to conduct cross-examination of the proposed trustees, who have filed their affidavits on oath before the Court. None of the candidates preferred to cross- examine any of the applicants. The learned District Judge has also considered written objections filed against the proposed appointment of the trustee of Mr. G.T. Nanavati and Mr. P.K. Bhagat and Mr. R.P. Shashtri for their reappointment. After considering all the materials placed before the learned District Judge and after minutely examined the merits of each candidate, the learned District Judge found Mr. Birenbhai Deepakbhai Parikh of Ahmedabad as fit to be appointed as trustee of the Dakor Temple Committee for a period of 10 years. While arriving at subjective satisfaction to appoint Mr. Parikh as trustee of Dakor Temple Committee, the learned Judge recorded reasons in para Nos.24 to 29 of the impugned order. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay for the petitioner could not lay his finger of any provisions either in the Dakor Temple Committee Scheme or under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act being violated by the learned District Judge while appointing Mr. Parikh as trustee of the Dakor Temple Committee. It requires to be noted here that the petitioner proposed name of Mr. P.K. Bhagat as proposed trustee to be appointed for the Dakor Temple Committee. Surprisingly, none of the proposed trustees, those who are Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/9203/2014 ORDER not found fit to be appointed as trustees of the Dakor Temple Committee Scheme, ventilates any grievance qua said Mr. Parikh, but it is only the petitioner, who approaches the Court by way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to object the impugned order appointing Mr. Parikh as trustee of the Dakor Temple Committee.

6. The height of the matter is such that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order to quash and set aside the appointment of Mr. Parikh as trustee of the Dakor Temple Committee Scheme without joining him as party in the present proceedings. Needless to say that no Court of law can pass any order against any person unheard.

7. Thus, considering the prime object of the trust and Scheme, it has appealed to the conscience of the learned District Judge to select Mr. Parikh as trustee of the Dakor Temple Committee as per Clauses 4(1) and 7 of the Scheme. In the scheme itself, the District Judge is given power to appoint trustee in accordance with the provisions contained in Clauses 4 and 7 of the Scheme and there is no violation of any of the provisions contained in the said scheme nor is there any allegation as to breach of any procedure in conducting inquiry in the process of appointment of trustee.

8. Thus, considering the facts of the case and findings recorded herein above, no case is made out to interfere with the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the learned District Judge in order to appoint Mr. Parikh as trustee of the Dakor Temple Committee and therefore, present petition deserves Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/9203/2014 ORDER only fate of dismissal and the same stands accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.

9. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay requests to extend the interim relief for a further period of two weeks so as to approach the higher forum. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to accept such request and therefore, request to extend interim relief for a further period of two weeks is hereby refused.

(S.H.VORA, J.) shekhar Page 6 of 6