Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dr. Laxman Dharuba Balkhande, was a trustee and secretary of a registered public trust named 'Pravarsem Shikshan Sanstha'. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, based on a complaint by four trustees alleging that the appellant had failed to get trust accounts audited, failed to place audited accounts before the General Body, failed to convene general body meetings, and was managing the trust arbitrarily. After inquiry, the Joint Charity Commissioner passed an order on 17.12.2004 refusing to remove the appellant as a trustee but removing him from the post of secretary. The respondent no.2, Dr. Suresh Shivram Lade, challenged this order before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who by judgment dated 21.1.2010 held that the Joint Charity Commissioner ought to have removed the appellant as a trustee and directed accordingly. The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench, consisting of S.A. Bobde and P.D. Kode, JJ., allowed the appeal. The Court examined Section 41-D of the Act, which enumerates specific grounds for suspension, removal, or dismissal of a trustee. It noted that the Joint Charity Commissioner had not found that the appellant's conduct fell within any of the grounds for removal as a trustee; rather, the Commissioner only found that the appellant had made persistent default in submission of accounts and failed to convene meetings, which justified his removal from the office of secretary but not as a trustee. The Court held that the learned Single Judge erred in reversing the Commissioner's order and directing removal as a trustee, as there was no finding that the appellant was unfit to be a trustee. The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner was restored.
Headnote
A) Charity Law - Removal of Trustee - Section 41-D Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - The Charity Commissioner may suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee only if one or more of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) are made out. The power to remove a trustee from a particular office (e.g., secretary) is not the same as removal as a trustee. In this case, the Joint Charity Commissioner found that the appellant had made persistent default in submission of accounts and failed to convene general body meetings, but did not find that he should be removed as a trustee; instead, he was removed only from the post of secretary. The learned Single Judge erred in directing removal as a trustee without such finding. (Paras 4-6) B) Charity Law - Suo Motu Proceedings - Section 41-D Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - The Charity Commissioner can initiate suo motu proceedings upon receipt of a complaint from trustees. Here, proceedings were initiated based on a complaint by four trustees alleging mismanagement. The Commissioner's order removing the appellant from the post of secretary was within his powers, but the Single Judge's order to remove him as a trustee was beyond the scope of the findings. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner, under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, can remove a trustee from the office of secretary without removing him as a trustee, and whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing removal of the appellant as a trustee.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2005 is set aside. The order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, is restored.
Law Points
- Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- Removal of trustee
- Distinction between removal as trustee and removal from office of secretary
- Suo motu powers of Charity Commissioner
