Vasant Shaikshanik Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Present appeal is preferred in order to challenge judgment and order dated 28.07.2015 passed by learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad in Change Report No.771/2012, by which learned authority has rejected the change report filed by the present appellant as a reporting trustee and also judgment and order dated 22.01.2019 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No.147/2015, confirming the said order.

The dispute pertains to trust registered as public trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, named Vasant Shaikshanik Sanstha bearing P.T.R. No.F-1771/1989 (Aurangabad). The appellant and four other individuals had issued notice dated 08.07.2012 to call an emergent meeting of the Executive Committee/Managing Committee of the trust on 15.07.2012. The subjects of the said meeting are as under :

In the said meeting, aforesaid five individuals who had issued notice passed a unanimous resolution for removal of respondent nos.3 and 4 as President and Secretary of the trust. After the said resolution was passed, a change report came to be filed for deletion of names of respondent nos.3 and 4 as President and Secretary, respectively. Learned Deputy Charity Commissioner had rejected the said application on the ground that under the bye-laws of the trust, notice of 10 days was required to be served for calling such meeting, which was not done in the present case. Being aggrieved by the said order rejecting the change report, present appellant preferred appeal before learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has dismissed the appeal holding that the meeting held on 15.07.2012 was not a valid meeting. It is held that 10 days notice as contemplated under the bye-laws was not issued and also that removal of respondent nos.3 and 4 was not one of the items to be considered in the agenda of meeting specified in the meeting. It is held that in the absence of such agenda item in the said meeting, resolution for removal of respondent nos.3 and 4 could not be passed in the said meeting.

The party in person, who is the reported trustee argues that the trust has always considered the notice period to be directory and not mandatory. He contends that material is placed on record that in the past emergent meeting has been called on 24 hours notice. The party in person therefore argues that the authority ought not to have rejected the change report merely on the ground that meeting was convened without issuing 10 days period. The party in person also contends that the Headmaster of the school run by a trust has threatened to commit suicide due to illegal acts committed by respondent nos.3 and 4 and, therefore, the situation was very emergent warranting calling such meeting. As regards the agenda item, the party in person refers to the notice and contends that the correspondence between Headmaster and the Secretary/Respondent No.4 was to be taken up for consideration in the meeting as per agenda Item No.2. He contends that the action to be taken against respondent nos.3 and 4 is implicit in agenda Item No.2, since correspondence indicated ongoing dispute between the headmaster and respondent nos.3 and 4.

Perusal of notice will indicate that there is no item on the agenda of proposed meeting with respect to removal of respondent nos.3 and 4. The removal of elected office bearers of the public trust is a drastic action which should be taken strictly in accordance with the bye-laws. In the present case, even if the notice period is condoned, having regard to the submissions that in the past emergent meeting have been convened on 24 hours notice, it is absolutely clear that the notice does not mention the subject of removal of respondent nos.3 and 4 as one of the agenda items. I am unable to accept the contention of the party in person that the agenda Item No.2 includes issue of removal of respondent nos.3 and 4. In the absence of clear notice to respondent nos.3 and 4 that their removal as office bearers would be taken up for consideration in the said meeting, in considered opinion of this Court discussion on the said aspect could not have been held in the meeting.

In light of reasons recorded above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the concurrent judgments and orders passed by both the authorities. Hence, First Appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.