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.
