Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. By notice dated 14.12.2021 schedule of election to be held on 30.01.2021 for board of management is notified. Thereafter by notice dated 28.12.2021 the details relating to proxy forms and submission thereof is intimated to the members of respondent No.1 - Trust.

7. After the commencement of the process of election as aforesaid, the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have unconditionally withdrawn CMA No.465 of 2021 on 7.01.2022 vide C/FA/142/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022 impugned order. Hence, present appeal.

8. The petition is resisted by respondent No.8 by filing affidavit-in-reply.

9. I have heard Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Arjun Sheth, learned advocate for the appellant-applicant, Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal T. Patel, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 & 8, Mr. M.I. Marchant, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1, 12 to 14, 16, 17 and 20 and Ms. Urmila N. Desai, learned AGP for respondent No.31.

10. Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned senior advocate vehemently submits that election for the managing committee of respondent No.1 - Trust was notified on 14.12.2021 in terms of the interim orders dated 14.10.2021 passed by the City Civil Court below Exhibit-13 in CMA No.465 of 2021. He submits that respondent Nos. 3 and 8 who are the two of the original applicant of CMA have collected the proxy forms to vote in the ensuing election. He further submits that the respondent No.8 has filed Misc. Application No.58 of 2021 dated 25.12.2021 before the charity commissioner for direction to conduct the ensuing election with proxy in terms of interim order dated 14.10.2021. He submits that the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 herein suraptitiously withdrawn CMA No.465 of 2021 unconditionally without informing the learned advocate for the respondents of the CMA. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Saiyad Mohammad bakar el- edroos v. Abdulhabib hasan arab and others reported in C/FA/142/2022 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022 1998 (4) SCC 343, he submits that charity commissioner is the master of the trust and the proceedings under Section 72 of the Trust Act are in continuation of the proceedings, and therefore, the Court below ought to have heard the respondent of CMA before passing the impugned order to find out whether any other person was interested in the proceedings with CMA. He submits that by withdrawal of CMA and vacation of the interim order, the operation of the scheme has framed by the charity commissioner by his order dated 31.07.2019 is revived in the midst of the election process wherein voting by proxy was also permitted vide notice dated 28.12.2021. Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vice Chairman & Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. And another v. Shishir Realty Private Limited and other reported in 2021 SCC Online 1141, in the case of K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2008 SCC 512 and in the case of Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & others reported in 2001 (10) SCC 51, rules of game cannot be changed once the game has started. It is his further submission that the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have withdrawn the CMA by suppressing material facts, and therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside.