Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Charu K. Mehta, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's application at Exhibit-3 in Application No.40 of 2009, which sought a stay of proceedings in Application No.15 of 2008. Application No.15 of 2008 was filed by respondent no.1, Chetan P. Mehta, under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, seeking suspension/removal of the petitioner as a trustee of the Lilavati Medical Trust. Respondent no.1 also filed an interim application (Exhibit-2) seeking suspension of the petitioner pending final disposal. The petitioner had earlier filed Application No.40 of 2009 under Rule 36(ii)(iii) of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951, seeking transfer of Application No.15 of 2008 to another authority. During the pendency of the transfer application, the petitioner filed Exhibit-3 seeking stay of the main application. The Charity Commissioner rejected the stay, leading to the present petition. The High Court considered whether the Charity Commissioner could proceed with the hearing of Application No.15 of 2008, including the interim application for suspension, despite the pendency of the transfer application. The petitioner argued that the Charity Commissioner should have stayed the proceedings pending the transfer application. The respondent no.1 contended that the Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to proceed. The High Court held that filing a transfer application does not automatically stay the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. The Commissioner has the jurisdiction to proceed with the main application and the interim relief application. The court found no error of jurisdiction in the Charity Commissioner's order and dismissed the writ petition. The court directed that the Charity Commissioner may proceed with the hearing of Application No.15 of 2008 and the interim application in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Charity Law - Transfer of Proceedings - Rule 36 of Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 - Stay of Proceedings - The petitioner filed an application under Rule 36(ii)(iii) for transfer of Application No.15 of 2008 from the Charity Commissioner to another authority. During pendency of the transfer application, the petitioner sought stay of the main application. The Charity Commissioner rejected the stay. The High Court held that filing a transfer application does not automatically stay the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner, and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to proceed with the main application and interim relief applications. (Paras 1-5)
B) Charity Law - Suspension of Trustee - Section 41-D of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Interim Relief - Respondent No.1 filed Application No.15 of 2008 under Section 41-D seeking suspension/removal of the petitioner as trustee of Lilavati Medical Trust, along with an interim application for suspension. The Charity Commissioner, while rejecting the stay sought by the petitioner, was entitled to hear the interim application for suspension. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's order, finding no error of jurisdiction. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Charity Commissioner could proceed with the hearing of Application No.15 of 2008 under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, including the interim application for suspension of the petitioner as trustee, despite the pendency of the petitioner's application for transfer under Rule 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Charity Commissioner has jurisdiction to proceed with Application No.15 of 2008 and the interim application for suspension of the petitioner as trustee, despite the pendency of the transfer application. The court directed that the Charity Commissioner may proceed with the hearing in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Charity Commissioner's jurisdiction to proceed with application under Section 41-D of Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- pending transfer application under Rule 36 of Bombay Public Trusts Rules
- 1951
- No automatic stay of proceedings upon filing transfer application
- Power to grant interim relief under Section 41-D
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 402
Writ Petition No. 9753 of 2009
Mr V.B. Naik, Mr Raj Patel, H.N. Thakare, Pranav Sampat i/b M/s Thakur Jariwala and Associates for the petitioner; Mr S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel, Mr Prateek Seksaria, A Chaturvedi, Ashwin Sakalkar i/b M/s Paras Kuhad and Associates for respondent no.1; Ms M.S. Bane, 'B' Panel AGP, for respondent nos 2 and 3
Chetan P. Mehta, The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Charity Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for stay of proceedings in an application under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Charity Commissioner rejecting her application for stay of Application No.15 of 2008, and sought a direction to stay the proceedings pending disposal of her transfer application.
Filing Reason
The petitioner filed the writ petition because the Charity Commissioner rejected her application for stay of the main application (No.15 of 2008) under Section 41-D of the Act, which sought her suspension/removal as trustee of Lilavati Medical Trust, despite her pending application for transfer of that application under Rule 36 of the Rules.
Previous Decisions
The Charity Commissioner, by order dated 18.11.2009, rejected the petitioner's application at Exhibit-3 in Application No.40 of 2009 seeking stay of Application No.15 of 2008.
Issues
Whether the Charity Commissioner could proceed with the hearing of Application No.15 of 2008 under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, including the interim application for suspension of the petitioner as trustee, despite the pendency of the petitioner's application for transfer under Rule 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Charity Commissioner ought to have stayed the proceedings in Application No.15 of 2008 pending disposal of her transfer application (Application No.40 of 2009).
Respondent no.1 contended that the Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to proceed with the main application and the interim application for suspension, and that filing a transfer application does not automatically stay the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
Filing an application for transfer of proceedings under Rule 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 does not automatically stay the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner retains jurisdiction to proceed with the main application under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and any interim relief applications, unless a specific order of stay is granted.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, on the application at Exhibit-3 in Application No.40 of 2009.
Respondent no.1 has filed the Application No.15 of 2008, under section 41-D of the Act seeking suspension/removal of the petitioner as a trustee of the Trust known as 'Lilavati Medical Trust'.
By the impugned order, the Charity Commissioner has rejected the prayer for stay and hence this petition.
Procedural History
Respondent no.1 filed Application No.15 of 2008 under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the Charity Commissioner seeking suspension/removal of the petitioner as trustee of Lilavati Medical Trust, along with an interim application (Exhibit-2) for suspension. The petitioner filed Application No.40 of 2009 under Rule 36(ii)(iii) of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 seeking transfer of Application No.15 of 2008. During pendency of the transfer application, the petitioner filed an application at Exhibit-3 seeking stay of Application No.15 of 2008. The Charity Commissioner, by order dated 18.11.2009, rejected the stay application. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: Section 41-D
- Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951: Rule 36(ii), Rule 36(iii)
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
