Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, May 09, 2010
JUDGEMENT -JCC-09 APRIL 2010
IN THE COURT OF MR. R. V. VYAS, I/C JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, VADODARA SECTION (JURISDICTION).
Appeal for Justice Misc. No. 15/2010.
Number: 19
Plaintiff:
Dr. D. K. Pabby, Azad Apartment. Shri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi – 110 018.
Against:
Defendents:
1. Prof. Om P. Juneja
Resi : Dwarakamai, 25/B, Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390 002.
2. Dr. J. K. Dodiya, Associate Professor, Department of English, Saurashtra
University, Rajkot – 360 005.
3. Prof. Rajendrasinh Jadeja, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and
Research, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Anand 388 120.
Advocates: 1. On Plaintiff’s side: Mr. H. D. Parmar.
2. On Defendent’s (No 1) side: Mr. Ravindra M. Joshi/
For No. 3: Mrs. Nandini Joshi.
Subject: Vide Clause 41/A of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950…
Indian Association for Canadian Studies.
Registration No. : F/ 409/ Vadodara.
RESOLUTION
(1) In this matter the applicant under the BPT Act of 1950 vide application submitted by the plaintiff of the present case under 41/ A of the BPT Act 1950, Dr. P. K. Pabby, the representative secretary (operative trustee) of the Indian Association for Canadian studies, mentions the details of the opponents 1 to 3 and states that the matter appears to be illegal and unauthorized manner.
(2) Of the facts mentioned in the said application, that the said trust is registered at Vadodara vide the BPT Act 1950 and the Society Registration Act 1860, that the details of the present executives and their posts are mentioned, and that Prof. Om P. Juneja, Secretary was elected in 1986 at the time of the registration and in 1988 and 1991 as President and that he called the General Body Meeting vide letter/ notice dated 8/ 3/ 10 without being authorized by the external locus standi operative trustee and that details are mentioned about Dr. J. K. Dodiya, Rajkot as Returning Officer 10 February, 2010 and 8 March, 2010 and that the election is to be held at Anand on 11/ 4/ 2010 about which the details are mentioned. Though Prof. Jadeja and Prof. Juneja and the current executive committee are made operative illegally and in unauthorized manner and though the designated operative trustee is not authorized vide clause no. 4 of the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara dated 29/ 8/ 09, IACS letter head and stationery are used for 10/ 11 April, 2010 meetings at Anand. On asking Prof. Juneja about it, he denied it. Mentioning all these facts, this application is made requesting justice in the matter. In it, the election of the executives and the office bearers and the General Body Meeting and the 24th Annual Conference to be held at Anand is prayed to be stayed and Returning Officer for the E. C. Election and the Observer for the Election procedure, reasonable date and reasonable venue in the near future all these details are mentioned in the application as per the IACS Constitution, 1986.
(3) Along with exhibit no. 1, exhibit no. 2, list of documents, in which the copy of the resolution of the order No 2/ 1 of the appeal 38/ 2006, No. 2/ 2 of IACS Election Reconciliation Meeting dated 25 February, 2010 with details 1 to 7, 9 names and their signatures, etc. are mentioned. In it, in detail no 1 the dates of the elections are mentioned April 10/ 11 or April 17/ 18 or afterwards as preferred dates and Prof Juneja has given details of the alternative venue and “to continue and consider” the nomination forms received by 10th February, 2010, are mentioned. Also mentioned is “will not go” for the 1986 members and the present litigation by the plaintiff, D. K. Pabby with Opponent No 1 Prof O. P. Juneja and his signatures with other names and their signatures. In No. 2/ 3, the details of the Reconciliation Agreement are submitted which are considered for reading. In it, the details of the original Constitution which is in operation today and the coordinating office is registered at Vadodara with Prof. O. P Juneja as its coordinator until a new board of trustees is formed by election etc., are mentioned. In No. 2/ 4, a copy of the Memorandum of Association along with the copy of the rules and regulations are enclosed. In it, page 2 mentions the provision of election. In No. 2/ 5, the copy of the legal notice, 2/ 6 copy of the notice dated 10 February, 2010, in which (E) (F) details of the elections and the results 14 March, 2010 are mentioned; and with it present 8 March, 2010 and its details against (E) and (F) mentions 11 April, 2010. In No. 2/ 7, 2/ 8, 2/ 9 copy of the affidavit, 2/ 10 a copy of the meeting of the current executive committee (operative trustees), 2/ 11 copy of the letter to Dr. Chandra Mohan, 2/ 12 copy of the meeting of the executive committee dated 24 April, 1995, 2/ 13 copy of the letter dated 3 January, 1996; Exhibit no. 3 appeal for the interim relief, Exhibit no. 4 copy of the registered post A. D notice, Exhibits no 5 and 6 Registered Post AD acknowledgement slip, detail of the representation in writing from the plaintiff. Exhibit 8 Vakilatnama, no. 9 the details of the reply of the plaintiff’s appeal from the defendant no 1 in which the plaintiff’s appeal is not valid and not agreeable, as there is no legal reason caused that it has to be set aside (cancelled). The plaintiff has applied on a letter pad and below it he has made an appeal to the honourable Joint Charity Commissioner. In the matter of appeal no. 38/06 on 29/8/09, rejecting the change report the court has honoured the judgment of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. On 25/ 2/ 10 the plaintiff and his companions based in Delhi have agreed to hold election on 10/ 4/ 10 and so they cannot oppose the election, because here the principal of Estoppel is applied as a whole. The change report was submitted to the court of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara which is disapproved and so the management body mentioned in the para 2 of the appeal is not legal, and they do not get any right to take any legal action. The point that we, the plaintiff does not have any legal right is wrong, that there is no locus standi is wrong, that the only right stays with the operative trustee is wrong, that the returning officer has no right to issue the notice for the election is wrong, that by the order of the Joint charity Commissioner of the dated 29/ 8/ 09 the operative trustee has right to conduct the present election is wrong, that the plaintiff’s interpretation is wrong, that the plaintiff tried to persuade the opponent and the opponent denied to cooperate in the matter is wrong. The fact is that we believe that the authority to give direction in the election procedure does not lay with the honourable court. As per the judgment with the established principle mentioned on page number 300 in the matter of A. I. R. 1993 Bombay, the honourable court has no right to give direction or to interfere in the matter. Because the change report is disapproved and so the management body of this sort cannot be called legal. The members of that body do not get any right to pass any resolution. A meeting was held at the office of the High Commission of Canada in Delhi and its noting has been presented on the page 2 of the present application, all the members have signed it and the minutes too are presented. In paragraph no 1 of the minutes the plaintiff and his companions in Delhi have given consent for the election procedure and thus the notification dated 10/ 2/ 10 has been accepted. The only point to represent was about the change in the date of the election. Following the minutes the date of the election is announced on 10/ 11 April, 2010 and all office bearers have been informed about it. In Sr. no 6 of the minutes the nominations forms that were received as per the notification dated 10/ 2/ 10 of the election too are considered as valid. In view of the details of the entire minutes that the plaintiff has submitted, they have no right to stop the election procedure. The election was announced on the date 10/ 2/ 10 and a letter to that effect is considered by the plaintiff after about a month and a half on Date 29/ 3/ 10. Thus, as the time of the election is approaching nearer, the procedure of the election cannot be stopped after it. The procedure of the election has started, and the circulars about the election and the conference are issued. The members have obtained their railway reservation bookings. Proper arrangements for lodging and boarding of the member- delegates have been finalized and the booking of the hall has been made. Further, all procedures for the elections and the conference are almost completed. So if the election and the conference are cancelled without any reasonable ground the members of the association are likely to be put under lot of stress, difficulties, and inconvenience. The strength of the members is 300. It is not proper and reasonable that just because of the whim of the plaintiff the members are put to lot of inconvenience. Holding the election goes very much in favour of justice. Even according to the established principles of the honourable court, once the procedure of the election starts it cannot be stopped. Dr. Dodiya has been appointed as Returning Officer as per the provision made in the Constitution of the society, and the election committee has been formed following the provision of the Constitution. Allegations are made against Chandra Mohan for Rs. 30000/- and the appeal to that effect has been filed in the court of the honourable Assistant Charity Commissioner which is pending. Hence, Dr. Chandra Mohan’s affidavit cannot be trusted. Mr. D. K. Kaushik’s affidavit is irrelevant as he is not E.C. Dr. D. K. Pabby has illegally collected money from some members which he has not deposited with the Association. Jaydipsinh Dodiya in the court of honourable Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara has filed a complaint to that effect. The grant that is released by the Government of Canada has to be deposited in the Indian Bank, Fatehgunj Branch, Vadodara and if it is deposited in any other account, it violates the provisions of the FERA and FEMA Acts. In view of this fact, the government of Canada has suspended the grant for last three years. The case of the opponents is very strong at the first sight. As decided in the meeting dated 25/ 2/ 10 the entire procedure of the election and the conference has been accomplished on the part of the opponents. The notices of the election and the conference have already been issued. Bookings have been made for the lodging and boarding of 300 members and the conference hall has been booked for the delegates coming to attend the conference. The plaintiff does not show any valid reason. In such circumstances the weighing scales of convenience or inconvenience certainly goes in favour of us, the opponents. If the election and the conference are stayed the opponents and the members will have (is likely) to suffer such an irreparable loss that it cannot be compensated with money. If an appeal is rejected the plaintiff will have no loss to suffer. All these facts are shown and the reply is filed. No 10 Vakilatnama on behalf of the opponent no. 3; No. 11 application for further date from the opponent no 3; No. 12 written arguments in which the facts are submitted and to be heard by the honourable judge vide his powers under article 41/ A and clear it on the ground of their strengths and weaknesses. The executives of the applicant possess unchallenging rights to take decision to hold election and to take executive decisions about the association; the opponents who are not associated with the execution of the association for last several years do not have any right to introduce them as the executives of the association. Many years ago the opponent no 1 worked as the secretary and then he was relieved. The procedure of the said election of the applicant organization that the opponent has initiated is contrary to the basic regulations of the organization and also to the method of appointing new trustees and hence in the interest of the proper administration of the applicant organization under article 41/ A the honourable judge has powers to issue interim or final order in this matter. In order to support this argument, the case of Dev Krishnadasji Guru Dharmadasji (2008 (1) GHL) and others against the State of Gujarat and others (is cited). According to the principle set in this case, the application has to be considered for approval in the interest of the proper administration of the trust. Facts to that effect are found to be submitted. With it (the following) are submitted: a copy of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, showing limitations of the view of the facts ‘C’ of article 41/ A and scopes and the powers that can be used under that article, there are powers to grant interim or final orders for the powers to the executive body for proper administration of the trust. However, the details determined by the honourable High Court can be helpful to the plaintiff in the present conditions and that fact is found to be not established in view of the representation from the plaintiff for the executive body. Sr. No 13 Dr. J. K. Dodiya, a cover with acknowledgement slip is found to be submitted for the case; Sr. No. 14 Vakilatnama in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff); Sr No. 15 the details that Dr. J. K Dodiya sent to Dr. D. K. Pabby through speed post. Sr. No. 16 counter affidavit filed against the written reply submitted on behalf of the opponent no. 1 to the petitioner, in which it is stated that there is no question that we consider the honourable judge in any way inferior to our organization. The opponents have totally failed to prove how and under which authority they are authorized to conduct the election procedure as the executives of the applicant organization, as your honourable self has issued an order on date 29/ 8/ 09 in the matter of the appeal no. 38/ 06 approving the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner rejecting the change report, and hence he has not approved of the said trust and the office bearers. Despite this, two other names and their designations are mentioned on the left hand upper side of the letter and in that they have dishonoured the order, the statements made to that effect are incorrect. As the opponent no 1 mentions as the change report is disapproved no such order has been issued by the honourable Joint Charity commissioner that the management of the trust may be taken away from the present executive and handed over to someone else at that very particular time and in any manner. Or no such order has been issued to prevent in any way the present executive to manage the trust. The order to the Appeal states that as the need arises the management has to be run following the rules and regulations of the organization. Considering this, the authority to conduct the election rests with the present executive of the organization, and in the light of the entire matter, the reply submitted by the opponents and facts in the paragraphs and the denial of it and the representation of the opponents are false and disagreeable. The details of the representation from the petitioner, Sr. No. 17 written representation from the opponent no. 3, the appeal is not suitable for consideration in view of the appeal presented as a representative of the trust. The details of the resolution about the trust are not relevant, and hence under these circumstances they are to be rejected (cancelled), considering the details of the petition these details do not relate to challenge the election, it seems to be the objections raised against the date announced for the election. Dr. D. K. Pabby happens to be the signatory in the matter conducted at the Canadian High Commission, Delhi on 25/ 2/ 10 and he takes no objection to the election, but takes objection to the date of the election which was postponed with his suggestion for 10th April 2010. Instead of challenging Dr. O. P. Juneja for conducting the election, it is shown that he has requested for an alternative venue for election. All nominations are continued and considered. No member has resorted to litigation of any sort. The petitioner has not challenged the programme of the election. As shown in the details, he has only prayed for staying the general body meeting and the conference. The justice urged by the petitioner against the opponent no. 3, which is not incorporated in the purview of the article 41/ A, has no relation with the expense of the election. The petitioner (plaintiff) has misinterpreted the order dated 29/ 8/ 09. It confirms the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in view of the change report no. 468/ 2002. The petition filed mentioning that arrangements made for all members have been made for 300 members, etc is not worthy of legal consideration and it has to be cancelled (rejected) with the administrative expenses incurred on it. The representation of this sort, vide Sr. No 18 and list of documents in favour of the opponents. Attachment Numbers – 18/1, copy of the notice dated 10 February, 2010; 18/ 2 Xerox copy of the reconciliation meeting; 18/ 3 Xerox copy of the opponent no. 1’s letter dated 8/ 3/ 2010; 18/ 4 xerox copy of the agenda; 18/ 5 xerox copy of the resolution of the appeal no 38/ 6; 18/6 xerox copy of the PTR, in which column 3, fact no 4, the details of the name of the opponent no 1, inquiry for the article 28, inquiry no – 103/ 86 resolution dated 11/ 9/ 86 column – 4 the details of the method of succession as mentioned therein, and the provision of three years’ term for elected members. On considering these, following the registration of the details in ’86, no change report, except the office record of the Change Report no – 92/ 95, no details are found to be registered, it becomes a reason to believe that no action has been taken to follow the set procedures and rules, which can be inferred at first sight itself. It is also clear that the name of the applicant (plaintiff) is not found to be registered on the PTR even. Sr. no. 18/ 7: a list of the members likely to arrive on 9/ 4/ 10; Sr. No.18/ 8: xerox copy of the receipt of the hostel accommodation; Sr. No. 18/ 9: Xerox copy of the change report; Sr. no 468/ 2, along with the honourable Allahabad High Court A. I. R. 2005, with the lawyer’s representation. Considering with due regard the details of the order of the honourable High Court, the writ court cannot interfere once the election procedure is initiated. Presenting these details, there is reasonable ground to believe that the representation of the opponents seems to find the support. A. I. R. 1993, Bombay 315, in which ‘election process of governing council of trust set in motion Joint Charity not competent to interfere.’ Remedy is available under section 22 public trust election process Charity Commissioner cannot interfere, copy of the notice, this type of support to the representation of the opponent, all these are found to be having enough reason.
4. Thus, the petition submitted by the plaintiff (the petitioner), considering the details of BPT Act 1950 section 41/ A, considering the details submitted in the present suit, considering the copy of the PTR of the respective organization submitted, in whose details of column no. 28, the said organization was registered in 1986 and its column no – 5 about the method of appointing a trustee and manager, though there is provision for three years, considering the said column – 28 of the copy of the PTR, it is clearly found that except the details recorded at the office no other change as per the details registered in the PTR are found to be submitted or permitted. In its detail no – 3 of the name of column no. 3 trustee and manager the name of the opponent no. 1 is found to be mentioned, where as the name of the applicant (plaintiff) is not found as registered anywhere. It is found that the plaintiff of the present application and the opponent have done the interpretation of the details of the resolution of the order issued on appeal no 38/ 06 as it suits their side and manner. However, considering the representation of both the parties, following the details of the resolution order of the appeal 38/ 06 dated 29/ 8/ 2009, the petitioner of the present appeal often mentions in his representation that he is an operating trustee, and vide sr. no. 12 the detail shown in para no. 2 of the written reply, “Those who administer the applicant organization have unchallengeable legal right to conduct election and to take executive decisions”. After the order was issued in the matter of the representation of that sort and the details of no change according to the condition of the PTR and the details of disapproval of the change report by honourable Charity Commissioner and the detail of dismissal of the present appeal, there is reason to believe that the petitioner is aware of all these (facts). In spite of that, in the present case the plaintiff is found to be unsuccessful at establishing the details submitted by him by presenting proper proof and relevant details in support of representation of his right to carry out the work and at present right to conduct the election according to the provisions mentioned in the founding document (PTR-Schedule 1) of the organization. Against this, the name and details of the opponent no. 1 as registered in column - 3 of item – 3 of the PTR, and in the details submitted by the petitioner in no 2/ 2 of 25 February, 2010 the name of the petitioner of the present appeal and the name, signature and details of the opponent no. 1 are found to be clearly mentioned in the IACS election reconciliation meeting held at High Commission of Canada in Delhi along with items 1 to 7 and the names and signatures of all the 9 attendees. Further, in the representation of the opponent no details are found to be registered as objections of any kind by the petitioner against the election or the returning officer or against Dr. Juneja who is busy conducting the election, considering which in the present reference the fact is found to be believable and real. The submission of the petitioner in view of the date, which on considering the reconciliation agreement meeting item no 2/ 3 and no. 2/ 6 and the notice of 10 February, 2010 in which item E and F, and mention 4 March submitted in the notice of 8 March, 2010 vide item E, F of the election 2010-2013, the item of 11 April, 2010 is found. Thus, considering nos. 2/ 2, 25/ 2/ 2010 and 10 February, 2010 and 8 March, 2010 the present appeal is found to be submitted by the petitioner on date 29/ 3/ 2010.
Thus, in all respects the activities of the organization by which the general good is served, by which the objective and the intention of the said regulation is fulfilled, in this manner the executive committee and the persons associated with the organization have the obligation to carry out the functions of the organization following the provisions made and in the interest of the general public, is a matter beyond any doubt and real. Keeping this in mind that no action in view of any legal requirement is needed at this point in time and since no validity or legality is needed to be determined, it is clearly found that no situation is caused to impart instructions of any sort. (This is done) by just keeping the sole interest of the organization, and the general good in view and considering the entire matter submitted in this case. However, the details of the judgment of the Gujarat High court, which is taken in consideration with due respect, and the details of the honourable High Court to impart interim and final instructions to the executive authorities that are submitted on the part of the petitioner are worthy of acceptance. But, there is no reason found to believe that it can help the petitioner in any way. Against this, the opponent has submitted the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in which it is stated that once the election procedure has started, writ power should not be used. Considering the names submitted at the Bombay High Court by the opponent under article no 41/ A with due respect to the order of the honourable High Court, - trust – public trust – election process, the Charity Commissioner cannot interfere, the submission of that kind by the opponents supports their representation. As it is found to be favourable to the present case and to the fact and under the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that any detail or representation contrary to this under the circumstances is to be believed. Therefore, there is due reason found to support the representation of the opponents.
5. In the present case, no details are found to go with the prayer of the petitioner for justice, for matter to stay the procedure of the election, the general body meeting, annual conference and considering the submission of the opponent to that effect the point is found reasonably correct. Hence, how can and on what ground can the submission as regards the appointment of the Returning Officer and his committee and other matters be stopped? Why should it be stopped? Under whatever condition and circumstances, the petitioner has not been successful to establish the facts that the submission goes entirely in the interest of the organization or can be legally approved, which is revealed from the submitted details. Against it, considering the details of the hostel booking for the members arriving at the conference, and the procedure of the election almost on the verge of completion, and considering the weighing of the point of convenience and inconvenience, as submitted by the opponents, there is enough reason to believe it to go in their favour. By staying the election process to be held on 11/ 4/ 2010 with almost accomplishing the procedure of the election, conference and meeting what interest of the organization would be served in the first instance is not duly established. This is against the opponent’s submission that he has informed the members and it would cause unnecessary expense to the members and the condition like inconvenience to them the matter of what possible loss the petitioner will have to bear does not go in favour of the petitioner. While the opponents have mentioned the names and details in the present case, and the judgment of the Bombay High court in this condition. Considering the matter of the judgment, election process of governing council of trust set in motion, Joint Charity Commissioner not competent to interfere as remedy is available under section – 22 trust - public trust – election process, charity commissioner cannot interfere A. I. R. 1993 Bombay 315, whose matter of the judgment supports the opponent’s representation, is found to have enough reason at this point and under the present condition and circumstances to be consistent with the good of the organization and the people in general. The reason is that the process is almost completed and the matter to that effect is found in the representation made. However, here one matter is made clear with certainty whether the present petition contains the matter to furnish one point under article 41/ A of the BPT Act of 1950? Keeping that point in consideration, the decision about the present appeal has been made. Its effect of any kind, direct or indirect under the article - 22 shall not be considered or believed as matter causing hurdles or opposition. Hence, the respective provision, the respective competent authority, by the respective powers, there is irresistible right to take whatever decision. This fact is made clear in that respect. No procedure of decision making as per the point of judgment is done here. Just in the matter of giving orders / instructions in view of the circumstances and the conditions, should instructions alone be given in the interest of the organization? In that matter, keeping in view the basic facts, the condition is found suitable for taking decision about the present case. By it, since both the petitioner and the opponents are associated with the management of the organization, and present their own stand in that regard and the election is being held in the interest of the organization. Therefore, in this context in the interest of the organization, it is considered proper to give instruction to the petitioner and the opponent to think in their own way about how to perform the functions of the organization following the founding document and the provisions made in its regulations, take decisions/ decision once again about the suitability of the functions carried out. The reason for this is that under article 41/A there is no condition found to be arising to determine the judicial decision or validity/ legality of the functions. In the interest of the organization, the petitioner and the opponent who claim in their representation to be associated with the management of the organization (association) should in that matter make them better aware of the provisions of the founding document, the provisions of the regulations, and in the matter of the recorded conditions. The matter then leads to the condition to impart instructions to both the parties to perform the duties in the present condition in a definite, particular and reasonable manner so that the organization need not uselessly get into legal dispute of any kind, the organization attains progress day by day and meets its objectives and its benefit goes entirely to wellbeing of people in general and by it the purpose and objective of the present regulation become successful. Keeping this intention in the present circumstances, and under the present conditions whatever is felt most proper, suitable, reasonable and justified is conveyed through the final order as announced below:
-: ORDER :-
The petitioner and the opponents of the present appeal claim in the matter of their submission that they are associated with the management of the organization. But considering the facts and representations submitted in the matter of the present case, in the interest of the organization and the general good the conditions and the circumstances in the matter are found to reject (clear- fesal ?) the present application. Hence, in the present attachment No 1 the work of organizing the general body meeting of the IACS and the 24th Annual Conference of IACS has been undertaken, considering that matter it is clearly found that the petitioner and the opponents are not successful to conduct duties of the organization on collective and equal grounds. Hence, in the interest that the disputes do not increase and the organization attains gradual progress in view of the set objectives, and its benefits are rendered to general public, by which the objective of the present regulation is fulfilled, the conditions to that effect is clearly visible, the petitioner and the opponents are hereby instructed in the interest of the organization to think on agreed terms of procedure of the election following the provisions provided in that regard and conduct the process collectively according to the provisions of the founding document of the organization. Otherwise, under the respective provision one particular work, and the responsibility attached to it, the conditions to that effect may arise that its responsibility be laid on a person doing that work on personal grounds. Drawing the attention of the petitioner and the opponents and all those associated with the organization, in the interest of the organization and according to it has been instructed to conduct suitable process. This matter is however clarified earlier, yet it needs to be clarified again that here no validity legality is determined and no decision about judgment is made, And under the respective competent authority and powers the present appeal no. 1 along with all other the interim appeals necessary to be filed in the matter are rejected with the above mentioned instructions.
There is no order about the expense incurred. The copy of the order should be sent to the concerned parties for information. The complete copy of the order should be sent with due respect to the Charity commissioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad and Assistant Charity commissioner, Vadodara.
Date: 9/ 4/ 2010 Sd/-
Vadodara. (R. V. Vyas)
I/C Joint Charity Commissioner,
Vadodara Division, Vadodara.
Appeal for Justice Misc. No. 15/2010.
Number: 19
Plaintiff:
Dr. D. K. Pabby, Azad Apartment. Shri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi – 110 018.
Against:
Defendents:
1. Prof. Om P. Juneja
Resi : Dwarakamai, 25/B, Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390 002.
2. Dr. J. K. Dodiya, Associate Professor, Department of English, Saurashtra
University, Rajkot – 360 005.
3. Prof. Rajendrasinh Jadeja, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and
Research, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Anand 388 120.
Advocates: 1. On Plaintiff’s side: Mr. H. D. Parmar.
2. On Defendent’s (No 1) side: Mr. Ravindra M. Joshi/
For No. 3: Mrs. Nandini Joshi.
Subject: Vide Clause 41/A of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950…
Indian Association for Canadian Studies.
Registration No. : F/ 409/ Vadodara.
RESOLUTION
(1) In this matter the applicant under the BPT Act of 1950 vide application submitted by the plaintiff of the present case under 41/ A of the BPT Act 1950, Dr. P. K. Pabby, the representative secretary (operative trustee) of the Indian Association for Canadian studies, mentions the details of the opponents 1 to 3 and states that the matter appears to be illegal and unauthorized manner.
(2) Of the facts mentioned in the said application, that the said trust is registered at Vadodara vide the BPT Act 1950 and the Society Registration Act 1860, that the details of the present executives and their posts are mentioned, and that Prof. Om P. Juneja, Secretary was elected in 1986 at the time of the registration and in 1988 and 1991 as President and that he called the General Body Meeting vide letter/ notice dated 8/ 3/ 10 without being authorized by the external locus standi operative trustee and that details are mentioned about Dr. J. K. Dodiya, Rajkot as Returning Officer 10 February, 2010 and 8 March, 2010 and that the election is to be held at Anand on 11/ 4/ 2010 about which the details are mentioned. Though Prof. Jadeja and Prof. Juneja and the current executive committee are made operative illegally and in unauthorized manner and though the designated operative trustee is not authorized vide clause no. 4 of the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara dated 29/ 8/ 09, IACS letter head and stationery are used for 10/ 11 April, 2010 meetings at Anand. On asking Prof. Juneja about it, he denied it. Mentioning all these facts, this application is made requesting justice in the matter. In it, the election of the executives and the office bearers and the General Body Meeting and the 24th Annual Conference to be held at Anand is prayed to be stayed and Returning Officer for the E. C. Election and the Observer for the Election procedure, reasonable date and reasonable venue in the near future all these details are mentioned in the application as per the IACS Constitution, 1986.
(3) Along with exhibit no. 1, exhibit no. 2, list of documents, in which the copy of the resolution of the order No 2/ 1 of the appeal 38/ 2006, No. 2/ 2 of IACS Election Reconciliation Meeting dated 25 February, 2010 with details 1 to 7, 9 names and their signatures, etc. are mentioned. In it, in detail no 1 the dates of the elections are mentioned April 10/ 11 or April 17/ 18 or afterwards as preferred dates and Prof Juneja has given details of the alternative venue and “to continue and consider” the nomination forms received by 10th February, 2010, are mentioned. Also mentioned is “will not go” for the 1986 members and the present litigation by the plaintiff, D. K. Pabby with Opponent No 1 Prof O. P. Juneja and his signatures with other names and their signatures. In No. 2/ 3, the details of the Reconciliation Agreement are submitted which are considered for reading. In it, the details of the original Constitution which is in operation today and the coordinating office is registered at Vadodara with Prof. O. P Juneja as its coordinator until a new board of trustees is formed by election etc., are mentioned. In No. 2/ 4, a copy of the Memorandum of Association along with the copy of the rules and regulations are enclosed. In it, page 2 mentions the provision of election. In No. 2/ 5, the copy of the legal notice, 2/ 6 copy of the notice dated 10 February, 2010, in which (E) (F) details of the elections and the results 14 March, 2010 are mentioned; and with it present 8 March, 2010 and its details against (E) and (F) mentions 11 April, 2010. In No. 2/ 7, 2/ 8, 2/ 9 copy of the affidavit, 2/ 10 a copy of the meeting of the current executive committee (operative trustees), 2/ 11 copy of the letter to Dr. Chandra Mohan, 2/ 12 copy of the meeting of the executive committee dated 24 April, 1995, 2/ 13 copy of the letter dated 3 January, 1996; Exhibit no. 3 appeal for the interim relief, Exhibit no. 4 copy of the registered post A. D notice, Exhibits no 5 and 6 Registered Post AD acknowledgement slip, detail of the representation in writing from the plaintiff. Exhibit 8 Vakilatnama, no. 9 the details of the reply of the plaintiff’s appeal from the defendant no 1 in which the plaintiff’s appeal is not valid and not agreeable, as there is no legal reason caused that it has to be set aside (cancelled). The plaintiff has applied on a letter pad and below it he has made an appeal to the honourable Joint Charity Commissioner. In the matter of appeal no. 38/06 on 29/8/09, rejecting the change report the court has honoured the judgment of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. On 25/ 2/ 10 the plaintiff and his companions based in Delhi have agreed to hold election on 10/ 4/ 10 and so they cannot oppose the election, because here the principal of Estoppel is applied as a whole. The change report was submitted to the court of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara which is disapproved and so the management body mentioned in the para 2 of the appeal is not legal, and they do not get any right to take any legal action. The point that we, the plaintiff does not have any legal right is wrong, that there is no locus standi is wrong, that the only right stays with the operative trustee is wrong, that the returning officer has no right to issue the notice for the election is wrong, that by the order of the Joint charity Commissioner of the dated 29/ 8/ 09 the operative trustee has right to conduct the present election is wrong, that the plaintiff’s interpretation is wrong, that the plaintiff tried to persuade the opponent and the opponent denied to cooperate in the matter is wrong. The fact is that we believe that the authority to give direction in the election procedure does not lay with the honourable court. As per the judgment with the established principle mentioned on page number 300 in the matter of A. I. R. 1993 Bombay, the honourable court has no right to give direction or to interfere in the matter. Because the change report is disapproved and so the management body of this sort cannot be called legal. The members of that body do not get any right to pass any resolution. A meeting was held at the office of the High Commission of Canada in Delhi and its noting has been presented on the page 2 of the present application, all the members have signed it and the minutes too are presented. In paragraph no 1 of the minutes the plaintiff and his companions in Delhi have given consent for the election procedure and thus the notification dated 10/ 2/ 10 has been accepted. The only point to represent was about the change in the date of the election. Following the minutes the date of the election is announced on 10/ 11 April, 2010 and all office bearers have been informed about it. In Sr. no 6 of the minutes the nominations forms that were received as per the notification dated 10/ 2/ 10 of the election too are considered as valid. In view of the details of the entire minutes that the plaintiff has submitted, they have no right to stop the election procedure. The election was announced on the date 10/ 2/ 10 and a letter to that effect is considered by the plaintiff after about a month and a half on Date 29/ 3/ 10. Thus, as the time of the election is approaching nearer, the procedure of the election cannot be stopped after it. The procedure of the election has started, and the circulars about the election and the conference are issued. The members have obtained their railway reservation bookings. Proper arrangements for lodging and boarding of the member- delegates have been finalized and the booking of the hall has been made. Further, all procedures for the elections and the conference are almost completed. So if the election and the conference are cancelled without any reasonable ground the members of the association are likely to be put under lot of stress, difficulties, and inconvenience. The strength of the members is 300. It is not proper and reasonable that just because of the whim of the plaintiff the members are put to lot of inconvenience. Holding the election goes very much in favour of justice. Even according to the established principles of the honourable court, once the procedure of the election starts it cannot be stopped. Dr. Dodiya has been appointed as Returning Officer as per the provision made in the Constitution of the society, and the election committee has been formed following the provision of the Constitution. Allegations are made against Chandra Mohan for Rs. 30000/- and the appeal to that effect has been filed in the court of the honourable Assistant Charity Commissioner which is pending. Hence, Dr. Chandra Mohan’s affidavit cannot be trusted. Mr. D. K. Kaushik’s affidavit is irrelevant as he is not E.C. Dr. D. K. Pabby has illegally collected money from some members which he has not deposited with the Association. Jaydipsinh Dodiya in the court of honourable Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara has filed a complaint to that effect. The grant that is released by the Government of Canada has to be deposited in the Indian Bank, Fatehgunj Branch, Vadodara and if it is deposited in any other account, it violates the provisions of the FERA and FEMA Acts. In view of this fact, the government of Canada has suspended the grant for last three years. The case of the opponents is very strong at the first sight. As decided in the meeting dated 25/ 2/ 10 the entire procedure of the election and the conference has been accomplished on the part of the opponents. The notices of the election and the conference have already been issued. Bookings have been made for the lodging and boarding of 300 members and the conference hall has been booked for the delegates coming to attend the conference. The plaintiff does not show any valid reason. In such circumstances the weighing scales of convenience or inconvenience certainly goes in favour of us, the opponents. If the election and the conference are stayed the opponents and the members will have (is likely) to suffer such an irreparable loss that it cannot be compensated with money. If an appeal is rejected the plaintiff will have no loss to suffer. All these facts are shown and the reply is filed. No 10 Vakilatnama on behalf of the opponent no. 3; No. 11 application for further date from the opponent no 3; No. 12 written arguments in which the facts are submitted and to be heard by the honourable judge vide his powers under article 41/ A and clear it on the ground of their strengths and weaknesses. The executives of the applicant possess unchallenging rights to take decision to hold election and to take executive decisions about the association; the opponents who are not associated with the execution of the association for last several years do not have any right to introduce them as the executives of the association. Many years ago the opponent no 1 worked as the secretary and then he was relieved. The procedure of the said election of the applicant organization that the opponent has initiated is contrary to the basic regulations of the organization and also to the method of appointing new trustees and hence in the interest of the proper administration of the applicant organization under article 41/ A the honourable judge has powers to issue interim or final order in this matter. In order to support this argument, the case of Dev Krishnadasji Guru Dharmadasji (2008 (1) GHL) and others against the State of Gujarat and others (is cited). According to the principle set in this case, the application has to be considered for approval in the interest of the proper administration of the trust. Facts to that effect are found to be submitted. With it (the following) are submitted: a copy of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, showing limitations of the view of the facts ‘C’ of article 41/ A and scopes and the powers that can be used under that article, there are powers to grant interim or final orders for the powers to the executive body for proper administration of the trust. However, the details determined by the honourable High Court can be helpful to the plaintiff in the present conditions and that fact is found to be not established in view of the representation from the plaintiff for the executive body. Sr. No 13 Dr. J. K. Dodiya, a cover with acknowledgement slip is found to be submitted for the case; Sr. No. 14 Vakilatnama in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff); Sr No. 15 the details that Dr. J. K Dodiya sent to Dr. D. K. Pabby through speed post. Sr. No. 16 counter affidavit filed against the written reply submitted on behalf of the opponent no. 1 to the petitioner, in which it is stated that there is no question that we consider the honourable judge in any way inferior to our organization. The opponents have totally failed to prove how and under which authority they are authorized to conduct the election procedure as the executives of the applicant organization, as your honourable self has issued an order on date 29/ 8/ 09 in the matter of the appeal no. 38/ 06 approving the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner rejecting the change report, and hence he has not approved of the said trust and the office bearers. Despite this, two other names and their designations are mentioned on the left hand upper side of the letter and in that they have dishonoured the order, the statements made to that effect are incorrect. As the opponent no 1 mentions as the change report is disapproved no such order has been issued by the honourable Joint Charity commissioner that the management of the trust may be taken away from the present executive and handed over to someone else at that very particular time and in any manner. Or no such order has been issued to prevent in any way the present executive to manage the trust. The order to the Appeal states that as the need arises the management has to be run following the rules and regulations of the organization. Considering this, the authority to conduct the election rests with the present executive of the organization, and in the light of the entire matter, the reply submitted by the opponents and facts in the paragraphs and the denial of it and the representation of the opponents are false and disagreeable. The details of the representation from the petitioner, Sr. No. 17 written representation from the opponent no. 3, the appeal is not suitable for consideration in view of the appeal presented as a representative of the trust. The details of the resolution about the trust are not relevant, and hence under these circumstances they are to be rejected (cancelled), considering the details of the petition these details do not relate to challenge the election, it seems to be the objections raised against the date announced for the election. Dr. D. K. Pabby happens to be the signatory in the matter conducted at the Canadian High Commission, Delhi on 25/ 2/ 10 and he takes no objection to the election, but takes objection to the date of the election which was postponed with his suggestion for 10th April 2010. Instead of challenging Dr. O. P. Juneja for conducting the election, it is shown that he has requested for an alternative venue for election. All nominations are continued and considered. No member has resorted to litigation of any sort. The petitioner has not challenged the programme of the election. As shown in the details, he has only prayed for staying the general body meeting and the conference. The justice urged by the petitioner against the opponent no. 3, which is not incorporated in the purview of the article 41/ A, has no relation with the expense of the election. The petitioner (plaintiff) has misinterpreted the order dated 29/ 8/ 09. It confirms the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in view of the change report no. 468/ 2002. The petition filed mentioning that arrangements made for all members have been made for 300 members, etc is not worthy of legal consideration and it has to be cancelled (rejected) with the administrative expenses incurred on it. The representation of this sort, vide Sr. No 18 and list of documents in favour of the opponents. Attachment Numbers – 18/1, copy of the notice dated 10 February, 2010; 18/ 2 Xerox copy of the reconciliation meeting; 18/ 3 Xerox copy of the opponent no. 1’s letter dated 8/ 3/ 2010; 18/ 4 xerox copy of the agenda; 18/ 5 xerox copy of the resolution of the appeal no 38/ 6; 18/6 xerox copy of the PTR, in which column 3, fact no 4, the details of the name of the opponent no 1, inquiry for the article 28, inquiry no – 103/ 86 resolution dated 11/ 9/ 86 column – 4 the details of the method of succession as mentioned therein, and the provision of three years’ term for elected members. On considering these, following the registration of the details in ’86, no change report, except the office record of the Change Report no – 92/ 95, no details are found to be registered, it becomes a reason to believe that no action has been taken to follow the set procedures and rules, which can be inferred at first sight itself. It is also clear that the name of the applicant (plaintiff) is not found to be registered on the PTR even. Sr. no. 18/ 7: a list of the members likely to arrive on 9/ 4/ 10; Sr. No.18/ 8: xerox copy of the receipt of the hostel accommodation; Sr. No. 18/ 9: Xerox copy of the change report; Sr. no 468/ 2, along with the honourable Allahabad High Court A. I. R. 2005, with the lawyer’s representation. Considering with due regard the details of the order of the honourable High Court, the writ court cannot interfere once the election procedure is initiated. Presenting these details, there is reasonable ground to believe that the representation of the opponents seems to find the support. A. I. R. 1993, Bombay 315, in which ‘election process of governing council of trust set in motion Joint Charity not competent to interfere.’ Remedy is available under section 22 public trust election process Charity Commissioner cannot interfere, copy of the notice, this type of support to the representation of the opponent, all these are found to be having enough reason.
4. Thus, the petition submitted by the plaintiff (the petitioner), considering the details of BPT Act 1950 section 41/ A, considering the details submitted in the present suit, considering the copy of the PTR of the respective organization submitted, in whose details of column no. 28, the said organization was registered in 1986 and its column no – 5 about the method of appointing a trustee and manager, though there is provision for three years, considering the said column – 28 of the copy of the PTR, it is clearly found that except the details recorded at the office no other change as per the details registered in the PTR are found to be submitted or permitted. In its detail no – 3 of the name of column no. 3 trustee and manager the name of the opponent no. 1 is found to be mentioned, where as the name of the applicant (plaintiff) is not found as registered anywhere. It is found that the plaintiff of the present application and the opponent have done the interpretation of the details of the resolution of the order issued on appeal no 38/ 06 as it suits their side and manner. However, considering the representation of both the parties, following the details of the resolution order of the appeal 38/ 06 dated 29/ 8/ 2009, the petitioner of the present appeal often mentions in his representation that he is an operating trustee, and vide sr. no. 12 the detail shown in para no. 2 of the written reply, “Those who administer the applicant organization have unchallengeable legal right to conduct election and to take executive decisions”. After the order was issued in the matter of the representation of that sort and the details of no change according to the condition of the PTR and the details of disapproval of the change report by honourable Charity Commissioner and the detail of dismissal of the present appeal, there is reason to believe that the petitioner is aware of all these (facts). In spite of that, in the present case the plaintiff is found to be unsuccessful at establishing the details submitted by him by presenting proper proof and relevant details in support of representation of his right to carry out the work and at present right to conduct the election according to the provisions mentioned in the founding document (PTR-Schedule 1) of the organization. Against this, the name and details of the opponent no. 1 as registered in column - 3 of item – 3 of the PTR, and in the details submitted by the petitioner in no 2/ 2 of 25 February, 2010 the name of the petitioner of the present appeal and the name, signature and details of the opponent no. 1 are found to be clearly mentioned in the IACS election reconciliation meeting held at High Commission of Canada in Delhi along with items 1 to 7 and the names and signatures of all the 9 attendees. Further, in the representation of the opponent no details are found to be registered as objections of any kind by the petitioner against the election or the returning officer or against Dr. Juneja who is busy conducting the election, considering which in the present reference the fact is found to be believable and real. The submission of the petitioner in view of the date, which on considering the reconciliation agreement meeting item no 2/ 3 and no. 2/ 6 and the notice of 10 February, 2010 in which item E and F, and mention 4 March submitted in the notice of 8 March, 2010 vide item E, F of the election 2010-2013, the item of 11 April, 2010 is found. Thus, considering nos. 2/ 2, 25/ 2/ 2010 and 10 February, 2010 and 8 March, 2010 the present appeal is found to be submitted by the petitioner on date 29/ 3/ 2010.
Thus, in all respects the activities of the organization by which the general good is served, by which the objective and the intention of the said regulation is fulfilled, in this manner the executive committee and the persons associated with the organization have the obligation to carry out the functions of the organization following the provisions made and in the interest of the general public, is a matter beyond any doubt and real. Keeping this in mind that no action in view of any legal requirement is needed at this point in time and since no validity or legality is needed to be determined, it is clearly found that no situation is caused to impart instructions of any sort. (This is done) by just keeping the sole interest of the organization, and the general good in view and considering the entire matter submitted in this case. However, the details of the judgment of the Gujarat High court, which is taken in consideration with due respect, and the details of the honourable High Court to impart interim and final instructions to the executive authorities that are submitted on the part of the petitioner are worthy of acceptance. But, there is no reason found to believe that it can help the petitioner in any way. Against this, the opponent has submitted the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in which it is stated that once the election procedure has started, writ power should not be used. Considering the names submitted at the Bombay High Court by the opponent under article no 41/ A with due respect to the order of the honourable High Court, - trust – public trust – election process, the Charity Commissioner cannot interfere, the submission of that kind by the opponents supports their representation. As it is found to be favourable to the present case and to the fact and under the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that any detail or representation contrary to this under the circumstances is to be believed. Therefore, there is due reason found to support the representation of the opponents.
5. In the present case, no details are found to go with the prayer of the petitioner for justice, for matter to stay the procedure of the election, the general body meeting, annual conference and considering the submission of the opponent to that effect the point is found reasonably correct. Hence, how can and on what ground can the submission as regards the appointment of the Returning Officer and his committee and other matters be stopped? Why should it be stopped? Under whatever condition and circumstances, the petitioner has not been successful to establish the facts that the submission goes entirely in the interest of the organization or can be legally approved, which is revealed from the submitted details. Against it, considering the details of the hostel booking for the members arriving at the conference, and the procedure of the election almost on the verge of completion, and considering the weighing of the point of convenience and inconvenience, as submitted by the opponents, there is enough reason to believe it to go in their favour. By staying the election process to be held on 11/ 4/ 2010 with almost accomplishing the procedure of the election, conference and meeting what interest of the organization would be served in the first instance is not duly established. This is against the opponent’s submission that he has informed the members and it would cause unnecessary expense to the members and the condition like inconvenience to them the matter of what possible loss the petitioner will have to bear does not go in favour of the petitioner. While the opponents have mentioned the names and details in the present case, and the judgment of the Bombay High court in this condition. Considering the matter of the judgment, election process of governing council of trust set in motion, Joint Charity Commissioner not competent to interfere as remedy is available under section – 22 trust - public trust – election process, charity commissioner cannot interfere A. I. R. 1993 Bombay 315, whose matter of the judgment supports the opponent’s representation, is found to have enough reason at this point and under the present condition and circumstances to be consistent with the good of the organization and the people in general. The reason is that the process is almost completed and the matter to that effect is found in the representation made. However, here one matter is made clear with certainty whether the present petition contains the matter to furnish one point under article 41/ A of the BPT Act of 1950? Keeping that point in consideration, the decision about the present appeal has been made. Its effect of any kind, direct or indirect under the article - 22 shall not be considered or believed as matter causing hurdles or opposition. Hence, the respective provision, the respective competent authority, by the respective powers, there is irresistible right to take whatever decision. This fact is made clear in that respect. No procedure of decision making as per the point of judgment is done here. Just in the matter of giving orders / instructions in view of the circumstances and the conditions, should instructions alone be given in the interest of the organization? In that matter, keeping in view the basic facts, the condition is found suitable for taking decision about the present case. By it, since both the petitioner and the opponents are associated with the management of the organization, and present their own stand in that regard and the election is being held in the interest of the organization. Therefore, in this context in the interest of the organization, it is considered proper to give instruction to the petitioner and the opponent to think in their own way about how to perform the functions of the organization following the founding document and the provisions made in its regulations, take decisions/ decision once again about the suitability of the functions carried out. The reason for this is that under article 41/A there is no condition found to be arising to determine the judicial decision or validity/ legality of the functions. In the interest of the organization, the petitioner and the opponent who claim in their representation to be associated with the management of the organization (association) should in that matter make them better aware of the provisions of the founding document, the provisions of the regulations, and in the matter of the recorded conditions. The matter then leads to the condition to impart instructions to both the parties to perform the duties in the present condition in a definite, particular and reasonable manner so that the organization need not uselessly get into legal dispute of any kind, the organization attains progress day by day and meets its objectives and its benefit goes entirely to wellbeing of people in general and by it the purpose and objective of the present regulation become successful. Keeping this intention in the present circumstances, and under the present conditions whatever is felt most proper, suitable, reasonable and justified is conveyed through the final order as announced below:
-: ORDER :-
The petitioner and the opponents of the present appeal claim in the matter of their submission that they are associated with the management of the organization. But considering the facts and representations submitted in the matter of the present case, in the interest of the organization and the general good the conditions and the circumstances in the matter are found to reject (clear- fesal ?) the present application. Hence, in the present attachment No 1 the work of organizing the general body meeting of the IACS and the 24th Annual Conference of IACS has been undertaken, considering that matter it is clearly found that the petitioner and the opponents are not successful to conduct duties of the organization on collective and equal grounds. Hence, in the interest that the disputes do not increase and the organization attains gradual progress in view of the set objectives, and its benefits are rendered to general public, by which the objective of the present regulation is fulfilled, the conditions to that effect is clearly visible, the petitioner and the opponents are hereby instructed in the interest of the organization to think on agreed terms of procedure of the election following the provisions provided in that regard and conduct the process collectively according to the provisions of the founding document of the organization. Otherwise, under the respective provision one particular work, and the responsibility attached to it, the conditions to that effect may arise that its responsibility be laid on a person doing that work on personal grounds. Drawing the attention of the petitioner and the opponents and all those associated with the organization, in the interest of the organization and according to it has been instructed to conduct suitable process. This matter is however clarified earlier, yet it needs to be clarified again that here no validity legality is determined and no decision about judgment is made, And under the respective competent authority and powers the present appeal no. 1 along with all other the interim appeals necessary to be filed in the matter are rejected with the above mentioned instructions.
There is no order about the expense incurred. The copy of the order should be sent to the concerned parties for information. The complete copy of the order should be sent with due respect to the Charity commissioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad and Assistant Charity commissioner, Vadodara.
Date: 9/ 4/ 2010 Sd/-
Vadodara. (R. V. Vyas)
I/C Joint Charity Commissioner,
Vadodara Division, Vadodara.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
INDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANADIAN STUDIES REVIVED
Indian Association for Canadian Studies has more than one thousand members from
The Association had its 24th Annual Conference at H. M. Patel Institute of English, Vallabh Vidyanagar 0n 10-11 April 2010. It elected its new office bearers with Professor Om Juneja as President, Professor Ranjana Harish as Vice President, Dr. Vimal Dhawan, as Secretary and Dr. Dinkar Nayak as Treasurer, while Dr. Alice Anugraham, Professor Adesh Pal and Dr. P. Selvam were elected as members of the Executive Committee.
Assuming the Presidency of the Association, Professor Juneja stated that with the revival of Indian Association for Canadian Studies after a period of three years, the hopes of its members are high, particularly because the relations between
* Source: www.southasiamail.com for 15 April 2010 under Community News
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
REPLY TO PABBY'S NOTICE
Dear Dr. Pabby,
I received your mail yesterday, as I was busy with the 24th IACS Annual Conference at Vallabh Vidyanagar. The averment and submission made in your faxed letter and email are totally unjustified, improper, illegal, and one-sided and the language used by you is highly objectionable. You have distorted the facts to suite your convenience and have not taken the interest of the life members of the Association in consideration. The factual position of the application No. 15/2010 filed by you is as follows:
- In your application you had prayed for –
a) To stay the operation of 24th Conference
b) To stay the holding of the elections of IACS on 11 April 2010
c) To stay holding of the General Body Meeting on 11 April 2010
d) To appoint a Returning Officer for the EC Elections and an Observer to oversee elections on a reasonable date and at reasonable venue in the near future
e) To give other suitable relief as the Hon’ble Joint Charity Commissioner deems fit.
The Joint Charity Commissioner in his Order of 09/04/2010 (copy enclosed) has not allowed a stay on any of the operations that you had prayed for. He has not agreed to appoint a returning officer and observer to oversee election etc. So the question of staying the proceedings of the Conference, the Elections, and the General Body as you have stated in your letter does not arise. Your letter is therefore false, illegal and a deliberate misinterpretation of the Court Order.
- It emerged from your application and deposition that you have prayed for staying the Election and the General Body Meeting of IACS in the name of Indian Association for Canadian Studies as if you were the Association. This is self contradictory because the Association cannot challenge the Elections and AGM that it has declared.
- It emerged during the proceedings before the Joint Charity Commissioner that everybody agreed to accept the nominations filed pursuant to election notification dated 10/2/2010. The only understanding arrived at during the meeting arranged by Canadian High Commission in
- In your mail, the name of V. D. Kaushik is mentioned. By giving his name in this mail, Professor Kaushik, like you have challenged this Order, which is surprising. Pursuant to the Election Notification of 10/2/2010 he had filed his nominations for elections, which he withdrew later. Dr. Krishna Kanta Kaushik, his wife also participated in the election process by contesting for the post of EC Member. It is surprising to note this contradiction because on the one hand, Dr. Kaushik has signed this letter asking to stay the election proceedings and on the other hand, he wishes to participate in the proceedings.
- Please note that Dr. R. K. Dhawan, the Acting President and said “operating trustee” had also filed his nominations, which he withdrew a day before the election date. I may bring it to your attention that he has fully participated in the Conference, has chaired a session, and has attended the General Body Meeting held on 11/4/2010. Dr. Dhawan was pleased with the success of the Conference/ Election proceedings and Annual General Body Meeting which can be verified from the fact that he did not think it proper to raise any objection during the two day proceedings either orally or in writing.
- Following the advice of the Joint Charity Commissioner that you have mentioned in your email, it would have been appropriate for you to come to Anand. To follow the court order in letter and spirit, it would have been fitting for you, like Dr. R. K. Dhawan to participate in the proceedings of the Conference, Elections, and AGM, which you have not done. You have thus not followed the spirit of the court order that calls upon both the parties to work in the interest of the Association.
- You may be glad to know that more that 200 delegates from far away places like Coimbtore, Chinnai, Bangalore, Pune, Madurai, Warangal, Delhi, Orissa and Bhopal participated in the conference. There were others from nearby places like
As you know, now all the legal proceedings are over and there are no cases pending before any court. The three court orders no.468/02 of 22 March 2006, Final Order No. 38/06 of 28 August 2009 and the Order No. 15/2010 of 09 April 2010 have established the claims of the Founding trustees and the validity, legality and justification of the 24th Annual Conference, Elections of the EC and the AGM. Therefore, you are called upon to submit all the records to the newly elected EC and transfer the sums of money in the illegal Bank Account that you have with State Bank of
With this, I am sending the Minutes of the Election Committee Meeting announcing the results of the election held on 11 April 2010 and the photograph of the newly elected office bearers and EC members as attachments to this mail.
With regards,
Yours in IACS,
Dr. Pabby's Notice To Stop Elections
DEAR PROFESSOR O.P. JUNEJA AND DR.J.K.DODIYA,
C/O, H. M PATEL INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH TRAINING AND RESEARCH,
VALLABH VIDYANAGAR 388120, GUJARAT.
THE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER DELIVERED THE JUDJEMENT AT ABOUT 8:00 PM .ON OUR APPLICATION NO.15/2010 TODAY AND HE CALLED ALL OF US IN HIS COURT ROOM.YOU WERE REPRESENTED BY YOUR ADVOCATE MR. JOSHI AND
WE WERE PERSONALLY PRESENT. THE JT.C.C.,IN FRONT OF THE ADVOCATES ADVISED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES SHOULD SIT TOGETHER AND DECIDE ABOUT THE FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION IN THE INTEREST OF I.A.C.S.
ACCORDINGLY,BOTH OF YOU ARE REQESTED NOT TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION PROCESS AND GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE I.A.C.S. ON 10/11 APRIL 2010 BECAUSE,YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO CONDUCT THESE AS YOU ARE NOT IN
ADMINISTRATION OF THE I.A.C.S. AND YOU ARE NOT HAVING ANY OFFICIAL RECORD FOR THE ELECTION PROCESS.MOREOVER THE ELECTION CIRCULARS ISSUED BY YOU ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF I.A.C.S.
THEREFORE,YOU ARE HEREBY RESTRAINED FROM TAKING LAW IN YOUR HANDS TO PROCEED FURTHER.EVEN THEN IF YOU WILL PROCEED WITHOUT OUR INSTRUCTIONS ,THE SO CALLED ELECTION SHALL NOT BIND THE INSTITUTION AS WELL AS US. WE HOPE YOUR ADVOCATE MUST HAVE INFORMED YOU ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE COURT.
DR. D.K. PABBY.
Dr. V.D.KAUSHIK
C/O, H. M PATEL INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH TRAINING AND RESEARCH,
VALLABH VIDYANAGAR 388120, GUJARAT.
THE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER DELIVERED THE JUDJEMENT AT ABOUT 8:00 PM .ON OUR APPLICATION NO.15/2010 TODAY AND HE CALLED ALL OF US IN HIS COURT ROOM.YOU WERE REPRESENTED BY YOUR ADVOCATE MR. JOSHI AND
WE WERE PERSONALLY PRESENT. THE JT.C.C.,IN FRONT OF THE ADVOCATES ADVISED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES SHOULD SIT TOGETHER AND DECIDE ABOUT THE FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION IN THE INTEREST OF I.A.C.S.
ACCORDINGLY,BOTH OF YOU ARE REQESTED NOT TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION PROCESS AND GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE I.A.C.S. ON 10/11 APRIL 2010 BECAUSE,YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO CONDUCT THESE AS YOU ARE NOT IN
ADMINISTRATION OF THE I.A.C.S. AND YOU ARE NOT HAVING ANY OFFICIAL RECORD FOR THE ELECTION PROCESS.MOREOVER THE ELECTION CIRCULARS ISSUED BY YOU ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF I.A.C.S.
THEREFORE,YOU ARE HEREBY RESTRAINED FROM TAKING LAW IN YOUR HANDS TO PROCEED FURTHER.EVEN THEN IF YOU WILL PROCEED WITHOUT OUR INSTRUCTIONS ,THE SO CALLED ELECTION SHALL NOT BIND THE INSTITUTION AS WELL AS US. WE HOPE YOUR ADVOCATE MUST HAVE INFORMED YOU ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE COURT.
DR. D.K. PABBY.
Dr. V.D.KAUSHIK
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Reply to Dr. Pabby's Letter
27 March 2010
Dear Life Member,
I write this in response to the circular letter No. 01/2010 dated 12 February 2010 of Dr. Pabby asking all the members not to participate in the 24th Conference and the Election.
I may assure you that the 24th Annual Conference is being organised following the full legal procedure and will be held on April 10-11, 2010 at H M Patel Institute of English Training and Research, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand, Gujarat. I therefore request you not to believe the canard spread by a few disgruntled vested interests and participate in the Conference and the Elections.
The circular letter of Dr. Pabby has mainly raised three issues regarding the 24th Annual Conference and the Elections to be held on April 10-11, 2010. They are: a) status of Professor Juneja as authorised Trustee and Secretary 1986 EC; b) Current EC as the Operative authorised trustees and c) Reconciliation Meeting held on 25 February 2010.
a) O. P. Juneja as Authorised Trustee:
Dr. O. P. Juneja was “authorised to get the registration work done under Society Registration Act of 1860 and also to act where necessary in any Government or semi Govt. office for the same society” vide Resolution 1 on 20th February 1985 at M. S. University of Baroda. It is this Resolution which is registered on PTR-1 in the office of the legal authority. No other Resolution authorising any one else is registered with the legal authority.
Pursuant to the judgements of the Joint Charity Commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner Vadodara, an Extraordinary Meeting of the Founding Trustees was held in the Syndicate Room No. 3 at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad on 07 February 2010 to revive the Association. The following Resolution-2 to was passed authorising Professor Juneja : “Following Article VI of the Constitution regarding Elections, it is resolved that Professor Juneja is authorised to complete all such procedures including the conduct of elections and filing the “Change Report” in the office of the Charity Commissioner Vadodara.”
Dr. O. P. Juneja was the Founding Secretary of IACS from 1985-1988. It was noted in the Reconciliation Meeting held at Canadian High Commission in New Delhi on 25 February 2010. Dr. Pabby attended that meeting.
b) Current EC as the Operative Trustees:
A few facts are to be noted about the Current EC which, in fact, is totally illegal because of the following reasons:
The term of the office of this EC was over in 2007. IACS Constitution allows only three months for extension of term and not three years.
No elections were held in 2007 when they were due because of the Order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in May 2006 that rejected all the “Change Reports” and the Constitution of 1995 and re-established the constitution of 1986 and the Founding Trustees.
Accepting the judgement of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, the then President resigned.
Both the judgements of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner of 2006 and that of Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009 have rejected the claim of the current prorogued EC as Operative Trustees of IACS. Some members of the current EC, in fact, have been fined Rs. 2000/= by the Joint Charity Commissioner in his Final Order and have been asked to pay all the legal expenses from their own pockets and not from IACS.
The claim of the current EC as the Operative Trustees is false. The legal authorities have rejected it twice.
c) Reconciliation Meeting:
Some facts about the Reconciliation Meeting held at Canadian High Commission in Delhi on 25 February 2010.
The Meeting was convened by Canadian High Commission in Delhi and the Minutes were prepared by the High Commission and signed by seven people. A scanned copy can be found at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
The election dates as declared in the original notice were March 13-14, 2010. It was decided to postpone the Conference either to April 10-11, or to 17-18, 2010. As the guest houses were not available during April 17-18, it was decided to choose Apil 10-11 and the current President and High Commission was informed immediately.
Following the agreement in letter and spirit, the Notice for Calling the AGM was prepared for co-signing by the current President and the Secretary (1986 EC). As the President refused to sign, the Authorised Trustee and Secretary issued the Notification with his signatures only.
The Returning Officer issued addendum to Election Notice after waiting for the additional names till the printing of the Notification on March 9, 2010. The President, who was in Baroda, made frantic calls to the Secretary in Delhi to send these names. As the Secretary did not oblige, it was decided to send the Addendum without any additions for printing. Both the President and the High Commission were informed immediately.
The possibility of holding Conference at Ahmedabad was explored. The Authorised Trustee talked to and sent emails to Reaney Canadian Centre and to Vision Education Trust in Ahmedabad. As both of them refused to host, it was decided to continue with Vallabh Vidyanagar. All concerned parties were informed accordingly.
Some More Facts:
It is interesting to note that this letter is dated 12 February 2010 when it mentions a meeting held on 25 February 2010.
This letter makes no mention of the judgement of Assistant Charity Commissioner of May 2006 rejecting all the Change Reports, the Constitution of 1995 and establishes the 1986 EC as the only legal EC. For detailed information, please visit our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Please note that though the letter is written in the name of the Current EC, the President (Dr. R.K. Dhawan) informs me that he has refused to sign this letter as it is in contravention of the agreement that we signed on 25 February in the presence of the officials of Canadian High Commission. I would therefore like to surmise that this letter reflects the views of a very small group of persons within the current EC, though illegal.
Yours in IACS, Om P. Juneja, Authorised Trustee and Emeritus Professor
Dear Life Member,
I write this in response to the circular letter No. 01/2010 dated 12 February 2010 of Dr. Pabby asking all the members not to participate in the 24th Conference and the Election.
I may assure you that the 24th Annual Conference is being organised following the full legal procedure and will be held on April 10-11, 2010 at H M Patel Institute of English Training and Research, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand, Gujarat. I therefore request you not to believe the canard spread by a few disgruntled vested interests and participate in the Conference and the Elections.
The circular letter of Dr. Pabby has mainly raised three issues regarding the 24th Annual Conference and the Elections to be held on April 10-11, 2010. They are: a) status of Professor Juneja as authorised Trustee and Secretary 1986 EC; b) Current EC as the Operative authorised trustees and c) Reconciliation Meeting held on 25 February 2010.
a) O. P. Juneja as Authorised Trustee:
Dr. O. P. Juneja was “authorised to get the registration work done under Society Registration Act of 1860 and also to act where necessary in any Government or semi Govt. office for the same society” vide Resolution 1 on 20th February 1985 at M. S. University of Baroda. It is this Resolution which is registered on PTR-1 in the office of the legal authority. No other Resolution authorising any one else is registered with the legal authority.
Pursuant to the judgements of the Joint Charity Commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner Vadodara, an Extraordinary Meeting of the Founding Trustees was held in the Syndicate Room No. 3 at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad on 07 February 2010 to revive the Association. The following Resolution-2 to was passed authorising Professor Juneja : “Following Article VI of the Constitution regarding Elections, it is resolved that Professor Juneja is authorised to complete all such procedures including the conduct of elections and filing the “Change Report” in the office of the Charity Commissioner Vadodara.”
Dr. O. P. Juneja was the Founding Secretary of IACS from 1985-1988. It was noted in the Reconciliation Meeting held at Canadian High Commission in New Delhi on 25 February 2010. Dr. Pabby attended that meeting.
b) Current EC as the Operative Trustees:
A few facts are to be noted about the Current EC which, in fact, is totally illegal because of the following reasons:
The term of the office of this EC was over in 2007. IACS Constitution allows only three months for extension of term and not three years.
No elections were held in 2007 when they were due because of the Order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in May 2006 that rejected all the “Change Reports” and the Constitution of 1995 and re-established the constitution of 1986 and the Founding Trustees.
Accepting the judgement of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, the then President resigned.
Both the judgements of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner of 2006 and that of Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009 have rejected the claim of the current prorogued EC as Operative Trustees of IACS. Some members of the current EC, in fact, have been fined Rs. 2000/= by the Joint Charity Commissioner in his Final Order and have been asked to pay all the legal expenses from their own pockets and not from IACS.
The claim of the current EC as the Operative Trustees is false. The legal authorities have rejected it twice.
c) Reconciliation Meeting:
Some facts about the Reconciliation Meeting held at Canadian High Commission in Delhi on 25 February 2010.
The Meeting was convened by Canadian High Commission in Delhi and the Minutes were prepared by the High Commission and signed by seven people. A scanned copy can be found at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
The election dates as declared in the original notice were March 13-14, 2010. It was decided to postpone the Conference either to April 10-11, or to 17-18, 2010. As the guest houses were not available during April 17-18, it was decided to choose Apil 10-11 and the current President and High Commission was informed immediately.
Following the agreement in letter and spirit, the Notice for Calling the AGM was prepared for co-signing by the current President and the Secretary (1986 EC). As the President refused to sign, the Authorised Trustee and Secretary issued the Notification with his signatures only.
The Returning Officer issued addendum to Election Notice after waiting for the additional names till the printing of the Notification on March 9, 2010. The President, who was in Baroda, made frantic calls to the Secretary in Delhi to send these names. As the Secretary did not oblige, it was decided to send the Addendum without any additions for printing. Both the President and the High Commission were informed immediately.
The possibility of holding Conference at Ahmedabad was explored. The Authorised Trustee talked to and sent emails to Reaney Canadian Centre and to Vision Education Trust in Ahmedabad. As both of them refused to host, it was decided to continue with Vallabh Vidyanagar. All concerned parties were informed accordingly.
Some More Facts:
It is interesting to note that this letter is dated 12 February 2010 when it mentions a meeting held on 25 February 2010.
This letter makes no mention of the judgement of Assistant Charity Commissioner of May 2006 rejecting all the Change Reports, the Constitution of 1995 and establishes the 1986 EC as the only legal EC. For detailed information, please visit our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Please note that though the letter is written in the name of the Current EC, the President (Dr. R.K. Dhawan) informs me that he has refused to sign this letter as it is in contravention of the agreement that we signed on 25 February in the presence of the officials of Canadian High Commission. I would therefore like to surmise that this letter reflects the views of a very small group of persons within the current EC, though illegal.
Yours in IACS, Om P. Juneja, Authorised Trustee and Emeritus Professor
Sunday, March 14, 2010
OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS
INDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANADIAN STUDIES
Functioning Office: 101 Dwarkamail, 25/B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390 002
8 March 2010
Dear Life Member,
I invite you to attend the 24th Annual Conference of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies to be held on 10-11 April 2010 at H. M. Patel Institute of English at Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand in Gujarat. Your are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address: Professor Rajendrasinh Jadeja, Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research ,Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120. Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com Please note that there is no registration fee for the conference and we shall be happy to provide accommodation on twin sharing basis and all the meals free of cost.
As you know, the last AGM was held at Jammu in 2007. Since then IACS has had no activity because the legally competent authorities had declared the then EC illegal. However, some members of this illegal EC filed an Appeal against the order of Assistant Charity Commission passed in May 2006. This Appeal was dismissed on 29 August 2009 and the following Final Order was passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
THE FINAL ORDER
I. The appeal is dismissed.
II. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay from his/her personal properties the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each that falls to each one’s share to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara within 30 days.
III. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to redeposit into the trust funds from their personal property the amount as it falls to each one’s share towards all collective expenses that have been incurred from the trust funds towards the legal suit within 30 days.
IV. It has been informed that until orders are issued from the competent authority the work has to be carried out in the interest of the organization and in the public interest following the provisions mentioned in the document framed at the time of the foundation of the organization.
V. The order has to be conveyed to all concerned respondents of the suit and its copy will have to be sent to the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara. The original record has to be sent back.
In order to implement the Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner of 2006 and the Final Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009, an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Trustees (Executive Committee of IACS as of 1986) was held on 07 February 2010 at 11.00 a.m. at Indian Institute of Management in Syndicate Room No.3 in Ahmedabad.
It was resolved that the legal proceedings undertaken are in favour of the organisation and particularly so because the lawful authorities have passed the orders whereby the illegal actions of all those who filed the “Change Reports” are disapproved. The legal proceedings undertaken by Professor Juneja are approved. Further, that Professor Juneja is authorised to complete all such procedures including the conduct of election of the Executive Committee
.
Hence, the Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010.
As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, IACS Election reconciliation meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 (copy enclosed) and a it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. You may read the Minutes (signed by R. K. Dhawan, D. K. Pabby, V. D. Kaushik of the current EC, Vimal Dhawan and O. P. Juneja and three officials of Canadian High Commission) of this Meeting at our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com. “The circular letter for holding General Body will be co-signed by current IACS President and the 1986 Secretary” is one of points agreed upon in this signed document. However, Dr. R. K. Dhawan has refused to sign this letter.
It is abundantly clear that Dr. R. K. Dhawan and the illegal EC have decided not to honour this agreement that they signed in the presence of the officials of the High Commission of Canada on 25 February 2010. It is a repetition of the earlier Reconciliation Agreement that they signed in the presence of Mr. Jean Labrie and others from Government of Canada in September 2007 not to honour it at all.
We have sent 867 letters to all the Life Members of IACS by Post Under Postal Certificate that you would be receiving in a few day. In the meanwhile, you may please respond by just replying this mail.
Hoping to see you at the 24th IACS Conference,
Yours in IACS,
Om P. Juneja
Authorized Trustee
Secretary (1986 EC)
Telephone: (0265) 2793366
Mobile: 97262 89064.
Email: omjuneja@gmail.com
URL : http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Functioning Office: 101 Dwarkamail, 25/B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390 002
8 March 2010
Dear Life Member,
I invite you to attend the 24th Annual Conference of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies to be held on 10-11 April 2010 at H. M. Patel Institute of English at Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand in Gujarat. Your are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address: Professor Rajendrasinh Jadeja, Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research ,Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120. Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com Please note that there is no registration fee for the conference and we shall be happy to provide accommodation on twin sharing basis and all the meals free of cost.
As you know, the last AGM was held at Jammu in 2007. Since then IACS has had no activity because the legally competent authorities had declared the then EC illegal. However, some members of this illegal EC filed an Appeal against the order of Assistant Charity Commission passed in May 2006. This Appeal was dismissed on 29 August 2009 and the following Final Order was passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
THE FINAL ORDER
I. The appeal is dismissed.
II. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay from his/her personal properties the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each that falls to each one’s share to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara within 30 days.
III. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to redeposit into the trust funds from their personal property the amount as it falls to each one’s share towards all collective expenses that have been incurred from the trust funds towards the legal suit within 30 days.
IV. It has been informed that until orders are issued from the competent authority the work has to be carried out in the interest of the organization and in the public interest following the provisions mentioned in the document framed at the time of the foundation of the organization.
V. The order has to be conveyed to all concerned respondents of the suit and its copy will have to be sent to the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara. The original record has to be sent back.
In order to implement the Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner of 2006 and the Final Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009, an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Trustees (Executive Committee of IACS as of 1986) was held on 07 February 2010 at 11.00 a.m. at Indian Institute of Management in Syndicate Room No.3 in Ahmedabad.
It was resolved that the legal proceedings undertaken are in favour of the organisation and particularly so because the lawful authorities have passed the orders whereby the illegal actions of all those who filed the “Change Reports” are disapproved. The legal proceedings undertaken by Professor Juneja are approved. Further, that Professor Juneja is authorised to complete all such procedures including the conduct of election of the Executive Committee
.
Hence, the Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010.
As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, IACS Election reconciliation meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 (copy enclosed) and a it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. You may read the Minutes (signed by R. K. Dhawan, D. K. Pabby, V. D. Kaushik of the current EC, Vimal Dhawan and O. P. Juneja and three officials of Canadian High Commission) of this Meeting at our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com. “The circular letter for holding General Body will be co-signed by current IACS President and the 1986 Secretary” is one of points agreed upon in this signed document. However, Dr. R. K. Dhawan has refused to sign this letter.
It is abundantly clear that Dr. R. K. Dhawan and the illegal EC have decided not to honour this agreement that they signed in the presence of the officials of the High Commission of Canada on 25 February 2010. It is a repetition of the earlier Reconciliation Agreement that they signed in the presence of Mr. Jean Labrie and others from Government of Canada in September 2007 not to honour it at all.
We have sent 867 letters to all the Life Members of IACS by Post Under Postal Certificate that you would be receiving in a few day. In the meanwhile, you may please respond by just replying this mail.
Hoping to see you at the 24th IACS Conference,
Yours in IACS,
Om P. Juneja
Authorized Trustee
Secretary (1986 EC)
Telephone: (0265) 2793366
Mobile: 97262 89064.
Email: omjuneja@gmail.com
URL : http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
INVITATION TO 24TH IACS CONFERENCE
INDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANADIAN STUDIES
Functioning Office: 101 Dwarkamail, 25/B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390 002
8 March 2010
Dear Life Member,
I invite you to attend the 24th Annual Conference of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies to be held on 10-11 April 2010 at H. M. Patel Institute of English at Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand in Gujarat. Your are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address: Professor Rajendrasinh Jadeja, Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research ,Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120. Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com Please note that there is no registration fee for the conference and we shall be happy to provide accommodation on twin sharing basis and all the meals free of cost.
As you know, the last AGM was held at Jammu in 2007. Since then IACS has had no activity because the legally competent authorities had declared the then EC illegal. However, some members of this illegal EC filed an Appeal against the order of Assistant Charity Commission passed in May 2006. This Appeal was dismissed on 29 August 2009 and the following Final Order was passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
THE FINAL ORDER
I. The appeal is dismissed.
II. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay from his/her personal properties the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each that falls to each one’s share to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara within 30 days.
III. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to redeposit into the trust funds from their personal property the amount as it falls to each one’s share towards all collective expenses that have been incurred from the trust funds towards the legal suit within 30 days.
IV. It has been informed that until orders are issued from the competent authority the work has to be carried out in the interest of the organization and in the public interest following the provisions mentioned in the document framed at the time of the foundation of the organization.
V. The order has to be conveyed to all concerned respondents of the suit and its copy will have to be sent to the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara. The original record has to be sent back.
In order to implement the Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner of 2006 and the Final Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009, an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Trustees (Executive Committee of IACS as of 1986) was held on 07 February 2010 at 11.00 a.m. at Indian Institute of Management in Syndicate Room No.3 in Ahmedabad.
It was resolved that the legal proceedings undertaken are in favour of the organisation and particularly so because the lawful authorities have passed the orders whereby the illegal actions of all those who filed the “Change Reports” are disapproved. The legal proceedings undertaken by Professor Juneja are approved. Further, that Professor Juneja is authorized to complete all such procedures including the conduct of election of the Executive Committee.
Hence, the Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010.
As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, IACS Election reconciliation meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 (copy enclosed) and a it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. You may read the Minutes (signed by R. K. Dhawan, D. K. Pabby, V. D. Kaushik of the current EC, Vimal Dhawan and O. P. Juneja and three officials of Canadian High Commission) of this Meeting at our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com. “The circular letter for holding General Body will be co-signed by current IACS President and the 1986 Secretary” is one of points agreed upon in this signed document. However, Dr. R. K. Dhawan has refused to sign this letter.
It is abundantly clear that Dr. R. K. Dhawan and the illegal EC have decided not to honour this agreement that they signed in the presence of the officials of the High Commission of Canada on 25 February 2010. It is a repetition of the earlier Reconciliation Agreement that they signed in the presence of Mr. Jean Labrie and others from Government of Canada in September 2007 not to honour it at all.
We have sent 867 letters to all the Life Members of IACS by Post Under Postal Certificate that you would be receiving in a few day. In the meanwhile, you may please respond to register by just replying this mail.
Please note that there is NO REGISTRATION FEE. FREE ACCOMMODATION ON TWIN SHARING BASIS WITH ATTACHED BATH AND MEALS will be available to all registered delegates.
Hoping to see you at the 24th IACS Conference,
Yours in IACS,
Om P. Juneja
Authorized Trustee
Secretary (1986 EC)
Telephone: (0265) 2793366
Mobile: 97262 89064.
Email: omjuneja@gmail.com
URL : http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Functioning Office: 101 Dwarkamail, 25/B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390 002
8 March 2010
Dear Life Member,
I invite you to attend the 24th Annual Conference of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies to be held on 10-11 April 2010 at H. M. Patel Institute of English at Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand in Gujarat. Your are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address: Professor Rajendrasinh Jadeja, Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research ,Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120. Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com Please note that there is no registration fee for the conference and we shall be happy to provide accommodation on twin sharing basis and all the meals free of cost.
As you know, the last AGM was held at Jammu in 2007. Since then IACS has had no activity because the legally competent authorities had declared the then EC illegal. However, some members of this illegal EC filed an Appeal against the order of Assistant Charity Commission passed in May 2006. This Appeal was dismissed on 29 August 2009 and the following Final Order was passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
THE FINAL ORDER
I. The appeal is dismissed.
II. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay from his/her personal properties the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each that falls to each one’s share to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara within 30 days.
III. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to redeposit into the trust funds from their personal property the amount as it falls to each one’s share towards all collective expenses that have been incurred from the trust funds towards the legal suit within 30 days.
IV. It has been informed that until orders are issued from the competent authority the work has to be carried out in the interest of the organization and in the public interest following the provisions mentioned in the document framed at the time of the foundation of the organization.
V. The order has to be conveyed to all concerned respondents of the suit and its copy will have to be sent to the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara. The original record has to be sent back.
In order to implement the Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner of 2006 and the Final Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009, an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Trustees (Executive Committee of IACS as of 1986) was held on 07 February 2010 at 11.00 a.m. at Indian Institute of Management in Syndicate Room No.3 in Ahmedabad.
It was resolved that the legal proceedings undertaken are in favour of the organisation and particularly so because the lawful authorities have passed the orders whereby the illegal actions of all those who filed the “Change Reports” are disapproved. The legal proceedings undertaken by Professor Juneja are approved. Further, that Professor Juneja is authorized to complete all such procedures including the conduct of election of the Executive Committee.
Hence, the Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010.
As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, IACS Election reconciliation meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 (copy enclosed) and a it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. You may read the Minutes (signed by R. K. Dhawan, D. K. Pabby, V. D. Kaushik of the current EC, Vimal Dhawan and O. P. Juneja and three officials of Canadian High Commission) of this Meeting at our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com. “The circular letter for holding General Body will be co-signed by current IACS President and the 1986 Secretary” is one of points agreed upon in this signed document. However, Dr. R. K. Dhawan has refused to sign this letter.
It is abundantly clear that Dr. R. K. Dhawan and the illegal EC have decided not to honour this agreement that they signed in the presence of the officials of the High Commission of Canada on 25 February 2010. It is a repetition of the earlier Reconciliation Agreement that they signed in the presence of Mr. Jean Labrie and others from Government of Canada in September 2007 not to honour it at all.
We have sent 867 letters to all the Life Members of IACS by Post Under Postal Certificate that you would be receiving in a few day. In the meanwhile, you may please respond to register by just replying this mail.
Please note that there is NO REGISTRATION FEE. FREE ACCOMMODATION ON TWIN SHARING BASIS WITH ATTACHED BATH AND MEALS will be available to all registered delegates.
Hoping to see you at the 24th IACS Conference,
Yours in IACS,
Om P. Juneja
Authorized Trustee
Secretary (1986 EC)
Telephone: (0265) 2793366
Mobile: 97262 89064.
Email: omjuneja@gmail.com
URL : http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
ADDENDUM TO THE ELECTION NOTICE FOR IACS ELECTIONS 2010-2013
Dear Member,
SUB: ADDENDUM TO THE ELECTION NOTICE FOR IACS ELECTIONS 2010-2013
The Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010. As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, a meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 and it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. It was also decided that all nominations received as per the earlier notification (February 10, 2010) will continue to be considered.
Please note that the Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 will now be held on 11 April 2010 at the same venue as decided earlier, that is, at H. M. Patel Institute of English, Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, which is the venue of the 24th IACS Conference. All those candidates who have sent their nomination forms to the Returning Officer in Rajkot need not send them again.
Following shall be the Schedule of Elections because of change in the date of Elections:
(a)Last date for the receipt of nominations 01 April 2010
(b)Scrutiny and Display of Nominations 10 April 2010 1.00 P.M.
(c)Last Date for withdrawal of Nominations 10 April 2010 2.00 P.M.
(d)Declaration of Final Nominations 10 April 2010 6.00 P.M.
(e)Date and Time of Elections 11 April 2010 11A.M. - 2.00 P.M.
(f)Announcement of the Results 11 April 2010 4.00 P.M.
Further that all nominations will be sent to the Returning Officer, Dr. Jaydipsinh K. Dodiya, Associate Professor, Department of English, Saurashtra University, Rajkot 380 005 (Gujarat) on or before 01 April 2010 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due . In case you have not received the Nomination Form, please download it from http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Yours in IACS,
(Dr. Jaydipsinh K. Dodiya)
Returning Officer
Election Committee
Dr. Anant Shukla
Dr. Hitesh Parmar
Prof. Kalpna Jani
SUB: ADDENDUM TO THE ELECTION NOTICE FOR IACS ELECTIONS 2010-2013
The Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010. As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, a meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 and it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. It was also decided that all nominations received as per the earlier notification (February 10, 2010) will continue to be considered.
Please note that the Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 will now be held on 11 April 2010 at the same venue as decided earlier, that is, at H. M. Patel Institute of English, Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, which is the venue of the 24th IACS Conference. All those candidates who have sent their nomination forms to the Returning Officer in Rajkot need not send them again.
Following shall be the Schedule of Elections because of change in the date of Elections:
(a)Last date for the receipt of nominations 01 April 2010
(b)Scrutiny and Display of Nominations 10 April 2010 1.00 P.M.
(c)Last Date for withdrawal of Nominations 10 April 2010 2.00 P.M.
(d)Declaration of Final Nominations 10 April 2010 6.00 P.M.
(e)Date and Time of Elections 11 April 2010 11A.M. - 2.00 P.M.
(f)Announcement of the Results 11 April 2010 4.00 P.M.
Further that all nominations will be sent to the Returning Officer, Dr. Jaydipsinh K. Dodiya, Associate Professor, Department of English, Saurashtra University, Rajkot 380 005 (Gujarat) on or before 01 April 2010 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due . In case you have not received the Nomination Form, please download it from http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Yours in IACS,
(Dr. Jaydipsinh K. Dodiya)
Returning Officer
Election Committee
Dr. Anant Shukla
Dr. Hitesh Parmar
Prof. Kalpna Jani
AGM-24TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
8 March 2010
Dear Member,
It gives me pleasure to invite you to the Annual General Body Meeting of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies on April 11, 2010 at 4 P.M. at the venue of the Annual Conference to be held at H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research, Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand - 388120 to discuss the following Agenda.
AGENDA
1. Confirmation of the minutes of the last General Body meeting held at Jammu University on 27 February 2007. No copies of the Minutes are attached as the minutes have not been submitted by the then Secretary.
2. Declaration of results of the IACS elections for the term 2010-13.
3. Future Activities and proposals.
4. Any other item with the permission of the Chair.
(O. P. Juneja)
Authorised Trustee & Secretary (1986 EC)
For any query / information, members may also contact:
Om P. Juneja
Emeritus Professor, HMPIETR
101 Dwarkamai, 25/ B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390002
Email: omjuneja@gmail.com
Telephone: 91-265-2793366 Mobile: 9726289064
URL: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Dear Member,
It gives me pleasure to invite you to the Annual General Body Meeting of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies on April 11, 2010 at 4 P.M. at the venue of the Annual Conference to be held at H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research, Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand - 388120 to discuss the following Agenda.
AGENDA
1. Confirmation of the minutes of the last General Body meeting held at Jammu University on 27 February 2007. No copies of the Minutes are attached as the minutes have not been submitted by the then Secretary.
2. Declaration of results of the IACS elections for the term 2010-13.
3. Future Activities and proposals.
4. Any other item with the permission of the Chair.
(O. P. Juneja)
Authorised Trustee & Secretary (1986 EC)
For any query / information, members may also contact:
Om P. Juneja
Emeritus Professor, HMPIETR
101 Dwarkamai, 25/ B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390002
Email: omjuneja@gmail.com
Telephone: 91-265-2793366 Mobile: 9726289064
URL: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Revised Dates of 24th Annual Conference
REVISED DATES FOR CALL FOR PAPERS
24th ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CANADIAN STUDIES
Dates: April 10-11, 2010
Theme: Building Bridges: Canada-India Partnership
Host: H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research,
Vallabh Vidya Nagar, 388120, Anand, Gujarat.
Building Bridges: Canada-India Partnership
Papers are invited on all the areas of possible collaboration and partnership between India and Canada including business and trade, cultural exchanges, education, health care, science, and technology, sharing and creating knowledge and on such common matters as multiculturalism, democracy, national security, involvement in Afghanistan and other issues that matter both to India and Canada.
Following are some topics for paper presentations:
Strategic Partnerships between Indian and Canadian companies
Investment Opportunities: Canada and India
Indo-Canadian Diaspora
Climate Change, Environment, and Ecology
Building bridges of friendship through literature and performing arts
Films: Indo-Canadian Films and Film makers
Immigration to Canada
Partnership in Higher Education
Synergy in Energy: hydro, thermal, and nuclear power
Building Infrastructure, Railways, Cars, and Trucks
Aviation Industry and Aerospace
Establishing Democracy in Afghanistan
Digital Media
Members are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address.
Please note that there is No Registration Fee. Accommodation on twin sharing basis with attached bath and Meals will be provided free of cost to the delegates.
Om P. Juneja
Emeritus Professor, HMPIETR and Authorised Trustee, IACS
101 Dwarkamai, 25/ B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390002
Email: omjuneja@gmail.com
Telephone: 91-265-2793366
URL: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot
24th ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CANADIAN STUDIES
Dates: April 10-11, 2010
Theme: Building Bridges: Canada-India Partnership
Host: H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research,
Vallabh Vidya Nagar, 388120, Anand, Gujarat.
Building Bridges: Canada-India Partnership
Papers are invited on all the areas of possible collaboration and partnership between India and Canada including business and trade, cultural exchanges, education, health care, science, and technology, sharing and creating knowledge and on such common matters as multiculturalism, democracy, national security, involvement in Afghanistan and other issues that matter both to India and Canada.
Following are some topics for paper presentations:
Strategic Partnerships between Indian and Canadian companies
Investment Opportunities: Canada and India
Indo-Canadian Diaspora
Climate Change, Environment, and Ecology
Building bridges of friendship through literature and performing arts
Films: Indo-Canadian Films and Film makers
Immigration to Canada
Partnership in Higher Education
Synergy in Energy: hydro, thermal, and nuclear power
Building Infrastructure, Railways, Cars, and Trucks
Aviation Industry and Aerospace
Establishing Democracy in Afghanistan
Digital Media
Members are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address.
Please note that there is No Registration Fee. Accommodation on twin sharing basis with attached bath and Meals will be provided free of cost to the delegates.
Conference Coordinator
Professor Rajendrasinh Jadeja
Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research
Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120 Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com
Telephone: 91-2692-230079
For any query / information, members may also contact:Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research
Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120 Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com
Telephone: 91-2692-230079
Om P. Juneja
Emeritus Professor, HMPIETR and Authorised Trustee, IACS
101 Dwarkamai, 25/ B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390002
Email: omjuneja@gmail.com
Telephone: 91-265-2793366
URL: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot
Friday, March 05, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
APPEAL IS DISMISSED
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL IN GUJARATI
To,
Petitioner: The President, Indian Association for Canadian Studies, Vadodara,
Department of English,
Respondent: Dr. O. P. Juneja, Department of English,
Advocates: 1. Shri S. I. Patel, Petitioner’s lawyer
2. Shri R. M. Joshi, Respondent’s lawyer
Subject: The Bombay Public Trust Act 1950, vide the Item No. 70…
Indian Association for Canadian Studies, Vadodara.
Registration No. F/ 693, Vadodara.
RESOLUTION
(1). On being dissatisfied with the order issued on date 22/3/06 in view of the Change Report. No. 468/2002, the President, Indian Association for Canadian Studies, Vadodara has filed the present appeal vide the Public Trust Registration No. F/693/Vadodara under The
(2) The said petitioner (applicant) has filed an appeal in view of his dissatisfaction with the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara in view of the Change Report No. 468/ 02. Since the said petition has been entered, considering it the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has issued the present order with detailed analysis. One of the matters mentioned in the order is that no reference is made or clarification has been provided to the effect what kinds of amendments are entered in the Constitution. On behalf of the petitioner, the Closing Purshis has been submitted vide No 41. The arguments have been raised by the respondent vide No. 46. Against the objections raised by the respondent arguments are filed in written on behalf of the petitioner vide No 49 and the petitioner has submitted the Closing Purshis vide No 50. No oral evidences are presented from the either of the parties and as they are not willing so the matter is left to the order. Looking at the fact sheet No 1 and the papers enclosed with it, it does not get clear which rules of the constitution are amended and what kind of amendments are made. The petitioner has submitted the clarification vide No 33, but he does not mention what amendments are made or which matters are added. Looking at the amendments it is found that in majority rules from among the rules of the constitution merely additions to the rules are noticed. The constitution was registered in 1986 following duly the procedure of nominating a trustee to follow, and the same trustees continue to be on the record. Hence, it is known from the record that an election is not held as per the tradition of a follower. As indicated in Item 12 of the Society Registration act 1860, it needs to be verified whether the said procedure has been followed as it is required to follow in the interest of justice. Further, whether the circular agenda has been issued to all registered members along with the amended copy, whether any evidences are submitted for it, or whether the amended constitution has been approved of in the presence of the 3/5 members present at the special general meeting, no clarification to the effect has been submitted by the petitioner or no evidences are presented by him before the court. No evidence has been submitted to the effect that the circular has been sent to all the members of the organization. In view of the case, considering that the organization has 1000 registered members on its list, the copy of the amended constitution and its approval and any agenda sent to the members are not found to be submitted as proof on behalf of the petitioner. Not only that, looking at the proofs submitted in view of the suit it is not proved whether the amendments proposed in the constitution were approved in the presence of 3/ 5 members at the two special meetings, nor the petitioner has cared to submit the evidences to that effect. Further, the petitioner has not been able to prove that the society follows the legal procedure mentioned in the item 12 of the Society Registration Act 1860, etc. On considering the details submitted, the presented matter is found to be basic.
(3) Thus, on considering the memo of the appeal of the petitioner submitted and the matters in the order with which the petitioner expresses dissatisfaction, and considering the details submitted by the petitioner, it is found that if any agreement is entered by the affected parties on the part of the petitioner the same has been presented with the rejoinders to the effect “appeal is being withdrawn”. In that reference, it is found to have submitted the copies of the Reconciliation of Agreement. But it is found that the petitioner has not submitted any evidences, supportive facts or details that may be legally admissible in view of the reason for the appeal. Further, no representation or supportive details are submitted to the effect that any decision can be issued from here, or it should be done, in view of the Reconciliation Agreement between the affected parties or any provision available to that effect. In this reference, the judgment of the honorable Gujarat High Court as mentioned in the G. R. L. 42 between Lallubhai Girdharilal Parikh versus Acharya Shri Vrajbhushanlalji Balkrishnalalji (1967) that states, “Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the relevant provision there under and also objects of the Act, the Assistant or Deputy Charity commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal under Section 70, has no power or jurisdiction to pass an order in accordance with the agreement between the parties”. Since the matter of the judgment is in view, no option is available in the present conditions. Hence, on the ground of the matters submitted the said appeal needs to be granted reasonable justice. In this condition, the appeal made by the petitioner does not establish its claim on the ground of the submitted details and proofs. Hence, in this matter the present appeal is found to be fit in all respects for rejection in the present conditions. Further, since the present suit was carried on from the year 2006 to the year 2009 and since the petitioner has not accomplished the matters of proof as per the set procedure and in acceptable manner and it is not proved that in the matter of the agreement no acceptable procedure has been followed the said appeal and the expenses incurred thereon are found fit for rejection in the present condition. It means that all the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) collectively from his/her personal property as it comes to each one’s share within 30 days to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara and the order to that effect would be appropriate. Besides it, whatever expense is incurred from the trust funds in view of the present suit, the total amount to that effect has to be collected deposited back to the trust funds by the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed as it falls to each one’s share within 30 days from the date of this notice and the order to that effect would be appropriate. Further, it would be appropriate to carry on the functioning of the organization as per the provisions made in the interest of the organization and general public until an order is not issued by a competent authority.
(4) It is argued by the petitioner that as per the provision of the Society Registration 1860 the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has no powers or authority. But the argument cannot be accepted. Because the Assistant Charity Commissioner receives authority in the region under him as per the provision of the delegation of powers under the Item 8 of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950. Further, the point of ignoring the provisions of the Society Registration Act 1860 and that about the wrong interpretation of the Item 22 of the local law, The Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 too cannot be accepted in the present conditions. The reason is that the S. R. Act 1860 has been incorporated in the Item 2 (13) of The Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and its definition has been expanded and made comprehensive. And the same has been basically discussed in the detailed order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Hence, those matters cannot not accepted in the present conditions.
(5). Thus, in an overall view, since the matter of the present appeal submitted to the Court is not duly established by the petitioner with relevant evidences and since the matter of the appeal is not established on the basis of the agreement, considering the matters submitted in view of the said appeal and in the interest of justified decision the final order has been issued as under:
THE FINAL ORDER
- The appeal is dismissed.
- All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay from his/her personal properties the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each that falls to each one’s share to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara within 30 days.
- All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to redeposit in to the trust funds from their personal property the amount as it falls to each one’s share towards all collective expenses that have been incurred from the trust funds towards the legal suit within 30 days.
- It has been informed that until orders are issued from the competent authority the work has to be carried out in the interest of the organization and in the public interest following the provisions mentioned in the document framed at the time of the foundation of the organization.
- The order has to be conveyed to all concerned respondents of the suit and its copy will have to be sent to the Charity Commissioner,
(R. V. VYAS)
Vadodara. Joint Charity Commissioner
Date. 29/ 08/ 2009 Vadodara Division,
Vadodara.