Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.3 Shri Mansukhlal Pachhigar's wife's name is Hasumatiben Mansukhlal Pachhigar. They had two sons, named Shri Subhashchandra Mansukhlal Pachhigar and Shri Ashokbhai Mansukhlal Pachhigar and a daughter named Avantikaben. Her husband's name is Ashwinbhai. Subhashchandra Pachhigar has a daughter Snehal and a son Bijal and Ashokbhai Pachhigar has two sons Gautam and Siddharth.

2.4 Petitioner No. 1 is a trust which is duly registered on 17.10.1996 under the Act having its Registration No. E-3873 at Surat. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are trustees of the said trust wherein petitioner No. 2 Smt. Chandaben Drukeshkumar Upadhyay is its Managing Trustee. The object of the trust is educational development by opening primary and secondary schools and also helping other institutes in connection with educational activities. The trust deed of the said trust is produced on record at Annexure-A to the petition. Dhrukeshkumar @ Bankimbhai Upadhyay is the husband of Chandaben, the trustee of the Nageshwar Vidya Trust. The co-trustee is Rajnikant Shantilal Joshi. Rajnikant Shantilal Joshi is the husband of the sister of Dhrukeshkumar @ Bankimbhai, hence Rajnikant Joshi is "Banevi" of Dhrukeshkumar and hence Rajnikant Joshi happens to be "Nandoi" of Chandaben. Hence the two trustees are related to each other. If you see the object of the trust and trust deed it appears that the trustees have only given Rs. 1001/- to the trust and no other amount has been contributed by the trustees.

APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2004:

9.3 In view of the aforesaid proceedings it appears that Pankajbhai Harishchandra Jani, respondent No. 1; Manishaben Mayurbhai Patel, respondent No. 2; Manojbhai Ratilalbhai Kansari, respondent No. 3; Anilbhai Bhikhubhai Shah, respondent No. 4; herein, who happen to be parents of the students who were studying in the school filed an application before the Joint Charity Commissioner being Nyay Misc. Application No. 7 of 2004 against the trust and two trustees under Section 41(A) of the Act with a prayer to have obtained interim injunction that as regards the subject matter of trust, the Charity Commissioner may call for proceedings of the trust from respondent No. 3 i.e. Additional Charity Commissioner, Surat and examine the obtaining of movable and immovable property. The said Pankajbhai Harishchandra Jani has also prayed that as regards suit land, the trust may not surrender the said land to the original owners without obtaining prior permission of the Charity Commissioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also produced necessary records before the Charity Commissioner. The said application was filed on 28.4.2004.
9.4G From the record it appears that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 41(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act against the trust, trustees, original owners of the property (Pachhigars), SUDA as well as new purchasers of the school property, Power of Attorney holder of the two trustees, Sub-Registrar of documents, Surat; DEO, Primary Education Officer and Secondary Education Officer, Surat, inter alia fixing the date of hearing on 17.5.2004 and replies to be preferred on or before 15.5.2004. In that proceedings Chandaben filed her reply and other documents which I have referred to earlier also, given in the record particularly letter of DEO, reply filed by Rajnikant Joshi and Dhrukeshkumar Indurai Upadhyay.

CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS:

18 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It may be noted from all the various proceedings which have been set out earlier, the facts emerge that two trustees who are themselves related have only had a corpus of Rs. 1000/- on the trust. However, they initially executed Satakat of the two properties from the original owners, namely, Pachhigars (1) on 24.9.1998 and (2) 17.10.1998 and thereafter they have invested a huge amount and constructed school building but ultimately did not finally execute the Sale Deeds. Thereafter, various proceedings have been initiated and the Electricity Board and SUDA have taken action. Original petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 1986 of 2001 which was withdrawn by the petitioner. Thereafter, Ashokbhai Mansukhlal Pacchigar had filed Special Civil Application No. 2031 of 2003 in which the trust had filed petition and from the record it appears that they have also filed application before SUDA to regularise the construction as they have not taken prior permission for construction. It was also stated that the land was agricultural land and that they have not converted the said land as Non-Agricultural land before purchasing the same. So all these facts show that the trustees have not acted legally and bona fide. It may be noted that ultimately they had to surrender the land to the original owners and the original owners sold the land to Babubhai Karsanbhai Patel for which also the trust has got valuable consideration. However, there is nothing on the record as to how this consideration was received by the trust. Ultimately the school building has been demolished.