Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Second submission of Mr. N. B. Khandare, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is that the authorities have held that the remaining trustees have no authority under the trust deed to remove the hereditary trustee. The authorities constituted have failed to appreciate that although the trust document does not provide for a separate clause for removal of trustees it is to be seen 16 wp9543.2025+ from the instrument of the trust that the automatic vacation of the post of the trustee is provided for under clause 11 of the constitution of the trust and that the remaining trustees appoint new trustees after 1/3rd of the trustees retired every 3 years. Since, the trustees appoint other trustees the power of removal exists in the remaining trustees as they also have a power of appointing the trustees. Thus, for having entered into a disqualification as mentioned under Clause 11(6) the trust by giving specific notice to Milind Govind Kshirsagar has removed him from trusteeship. Said exercise is valid in terms of Clause 11 of the provisions of the Trust.

The learned Senior Advocate for the respondent further submits that the trust instrument does not provide for removal of a trustee. He particularly submits that under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act removal of a trustee is a very serious matter and can only be done by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the removal of a trustee cannot be at the hands of the remaining trustees. He submits that in the instant case, there is no power conferred upon the trustees under the constitution to remove a trustee incurring disqualification under clause 11(6) of the instrument and, as such, no such powers can be exercised by the remaining trustees under the instrument of trust to remove a trustee. He submits that after every three years 1/3 rd trustees retire and the remaining trustees appoint the new trustees.

17. Thus, from the above, it will be clear that if the trustee is found violating Section 41D(1) or incurs disqualification under the bye-laws and in absence of any specific power under the trust instrument to remove trustee by the remaining trustee then the only option available is to approach the Assistant Charity Commissioner or Deputy Charity Commissioner, who may inquire into the matter and may submit report to the Charity Commissioner under Section 41B. The Charity Commissioner may then proceed under Section 41D take necessary action by following the procedure noted in Section 41D. The Charity Commissioner also has suo-motu power of inquiry and action as noted in Section 41D. In the instant case, the inquiry was instituted against the 34 wp9543.2025+ trustees and the report was received by the Assistant Charity Commissioner of the inquiry conducted by the Inspector. The remaining trustee does not have the power to remove the trustee. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trustee could have been removed by the remaining trustees, in view of the directions of the Assistant Charity Commissioner is beyond the powers conferred upon the remaining trustees under the trust instrument and cannot be accepted. For removal of the trustee such a report can only be submitted to the Charity Commissioner. The Assistant Charity Commissioner cannot direct the trustees to do something which is beyond their authority and such is also not a direction in the report of the Inspector. Such a power of removal of trustee is not even conferred upon the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the Act.

18. In view of answering the above issue, nothing further is required to be determined by me. However, for the purpose of completion, I will proceed on the basis that a power is available in the constitution of the trust for the trustees to remove a defaulting trustee incurring disqualification under Clause 11(6) of the trust instrument and to determine, whether the removal is lawful in the facts of the case.

35 wp9543.2025+ The basis of the removal is stated to be complaints made by the devotees and importantly the report of the Inspector, which was submitted on complaint made by Captain Shri N. A. Chavan. The report was forwarded by the Superintendent of Public Trusts Registration Office, Subdivision Ahemednagar, on direction of the Assistant Charity Commissioner to the trustees to take appropriate action. The report states that if any trustee is found to act against the interest and bring the trust in disrepute, action be taken against him. The same reads as under: