Dr. Uday S/o. Shrikrushna Kale & Ors. vs Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.

Heard. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

With the consent of Mr. Jaltare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Joshi, learned AGP for the respondent No.1/State and Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7, the matter is heard finally.

By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati, by which the proceedings filed under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”), came to be dismissed.

It is the submission of the petitioners that while deciding the application, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati, has failed to consider the report dated 09.02.2009 submitted by the Inspector, which was part and parcel of proceedings of Inquiry Case No.6 of 2008 and Inquiry Case No.7 of 2008 of the Trust, namely Shri Govind Ramanand Sansthan Satguru Pralhad Maharaj Sansthan, Sakharkheda, Tah. Sindkhed Raja, Distt. Buldhana. It is further pointed out that if the said report would have been taken into consideration by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, the allegations and charges which were framed against the respondents could have been proved by the present petitioners in the proceedings. However, due to non-consideration of the said report, the proceedings were decided otherwise.

In the present matter, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents have strongly opposed the remand of the matter. According to him, it was the duty of the petitioner to place the said report on record before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. It is further submitted that the disqualification under Section 41-D of the Act, is a drastic action and therefore, the burden lies upon the petitioners to establish the entire facts before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Merely because the said report was not considered, cannot be a reason to held that the impugned judgment is liable to be quash and set-aside.

After hearing both the parties, it is revealed that, Report of Inspector was one of the important document as same was prepared by the Officer of Joint Charity Commissioner Office. The said report is prepared independently and will play material role to decide the allegation/charges framed against the respondents. Due to non-consideration of same, the finding recorded by the Charity Commissioner do not get entire accomplishment. Hence, to decide the matter, same must have gone through by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, in the matter. It would also helpful to put an end to entire controversy involved between the parties.

It would be pertinent to note that the report prepared by the Inspector was in respect of Inquiry Case No.6 of 2008 and Inquiry Case No.7 of 2008 of the aforementioned Trust. It is not a case that any enquiry is required to be conducted or any fresh report to be called for. The report is already available on record and same is only to be perused by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, while deciding the charges levelled against the respondents.

In the light of abovesaid factual position, I am of the considered opinion that the report, which is already available in the Office of the Charity Commissioner, be required to be taken into consideration while deciding the proceedings. Therefore, indulgence by this Court is necessary in the matter. Hence, I pass the following Order :-

The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Rule is made absolute in above terms.