AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
By means of this petition, the Petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Roorkee, whereby the S.D.M./Up Zila Adhikari has directed jointly to Tehsildar and Station Officer police station concerned that if any person, who has not been appointed by the said Trust and is not having an appointment letter, creates hindrance in the working of the Institute, restrain the management and employees to enter in the Institute, in that event, action be taken in accordance with law in order to maintain peace. It was also directed to remove the persons who are illegally working in the Institute.
According to Petitioner Mohd. Yunus, he is one of the Trustees of Graduate School of Business Administration Trust and has filed the present writ petition in the interest of Trust.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate/Up Zila Adhikari has exceeded his jurisdiction by passing the impugned order and has exercised the power of civil court by directing the Tehsildar and S.O. concerned to remove those persons who are illegally working in the Institute.
It is further contended that without ascertaining as to who are the authorized persons of the Institute how the Magistrate can pass such order, while this power is only vested in civil court.
On behalf of Respondent No. 2, one application for dismissal of present petition, has been filed by Mr. I.P. Kohli and Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocates, on the ground that Sri Mohd. Yunus, who is claiming himself to be a Trustees of the Institute, has no locus to file this petition on behalf of the Trust. An application had also been moved by Respondent No. 2 before Respondent No. 1 for taking appropriate action against the persons who are creating obstruction and hindrance in the proper functioning of the Institute.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 has contended that Sri Mohd. Yunus was removed as Trustee through letter dated 26th November, 2009 (Annexure No. 14 of the writ petition). The said removal became final, as the same was not challenged in any court. Sri Mohd. Yunus was removed on account of serious charges regarding his hiding that he was involved in criminal activities and also keeping in view his past criminal record and pending criminal cases and also in view of snatching and misuse of the funds of the Trust.
On behalf of the Trust, an impleadment application (CLMA No. 9861 of 2010) has been filed by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate. More or less same stand has been taken in the impleadment application. Therefore, this application has no relevance.
Along with the writ petition, Trust Deed is annexed (Anneuxre No. 1). I have perused the same. As per Clause No. 15 of the Trust Deed all the decisions pertaining to litigations are required to be taken by the Board of Trustees.
Clause 15 (f) and 15(g) of the Trust Deed are reproduced as under:
F. To adjust, settle, compromise compound refer to arbitration all actions, suits, claims, demands and proceedings relating to the trust.
G. To appoint constructed attorneys or agents and to delegate to such attorneys or agents all or any of the powers vested in them under these presents and from time to time remove such attorneys or agents and to appoint other or others in his/her place.
Clause 6 of the Trust Deed provides that the Trust shall be managed by a Board of trustees.
In view of the fact that Sri Mohd. Yunus was removed from the Trust and according to Respondent No. 2 he is not a trustees as on today, therefore, on the behest of the Trust, this writ petition filed by Sri Mohd. Yunus, is not maintainable and the same is liable to dismissed.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (Stay Application No. 9494 of 2010 also stands dismissed.)
However, it is clarified that the direction given by Up Zila Adhikari to Tehsildar and S.O. concerned, be exercised in accordance with the provisions of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Needless to say, the Petitioner Sri Mohd. Yunus would be at liberty to challenge the order of removal from the Trust before the competent forum, if he so likes and advised.