The Court upheld the decision of the Dy.C.C. as the petitioners had failed to file their objections despite being given opportunities. The judicial conduct of the Dy.C.C. was found proper, and the petitioners' stalling tactics were condemned. The Court reiterated that a judicial officer should act fearlessly and independently, and allegations without substance should not disrupt the legal process.

The petitioners challenged the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner (Dy.C.C.) that directed elections for the managing committee of the "Rural Education Society Murud" trust to be conducted. Allegations of judicial impropriety were made against the officer who passed the impugned order on the same day she was transferred. However, the High Court found no merit in the claims and allowed the elections to proceed, while reprimanding the petitioners for stalling the process.

1) Introduction and Challenge

Facts:

• Petitioners challenged an order dated 20.02.2024 by the Deputy Charity Commissioner (Dy.C.C.), Latur Region, which directed elections of the "Rural Education Society Murud."
• Petitioners claimed they were denied the opportunity to file their objections.
  Key Point: Challenge to an election order passed on the last day of the Dy.C.C.'s service.

2) Trust Background

Facts:

• The trust, "Rural Education Society Murud," had a pending dispute over membership and election issues from 2021.
• Several Change Reports (C.R.) regarding election terms from 2021 to 2026 were rejected.
  Key Point: Dispute regarding membership and Change Reports.

3) Allegations of Haste

Facts:

• Petitioners argued that the order was passed hastily on the Dy.C.C.'s last working day, without allowing them to properly file objections.
• The officer was promoted and transferred but allegedly proceeded to pass the order despite knowing her transfer.
  Key Point: Petitioners' claim of impropriety due to the officer's impending transfer.

4) Officer's Response

Facts:

• The Dy.C.C., Heera Shelke, filed an affidavit stating she acted properly, giving ample opportunities to the petitioners.
• She denied receiving any formal transfer or relieving orders before passing the impugned order.
  Key Point: Dy.C.C. defended her actions, stating she acted in accordance with the law.

5) Court's Enquiry and Findings

Facts:

• The High Court verified the timings of the Dy.C.C.'s actions via a hard disk report, confirming the order was passed before she was relieved.
• The Court found no impropriety in the Dy.C.C.'s conduct.
  Key Point: Court found no evidence of judicial misconduct.

6) Elections to Proceed

Facts:

• The Court directed that the trust's elections proceed, subject to the outcome of pending appeals regarding the rejected Change Reports.
  Key Point: Elections ordered to proceed despite pending appeals.

7) Costs Imposed

Facts:

• The petitioners were ordered to pay costs for causing unnecessary delay and for misusing the allegations of judicial impropriety.
  Key Point: Petitioners penalized for stalling tactics.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Bombay Public Trusts Act – Governs the administration and regulation of public trusts in Maharashtra.
2. Section 73-AA of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act – Discussed in the context of filing for intervention in the proceedings.

Subjects:

Dispute regarding the management and election of an educational trust, with additional issues concerning alleged judicial impropriety.
Trust management, election dispute, Bombay Public Trust Act, judicial conduct, legal impropriety, educational trust elections.