LexCHARITY COMMISSIONER, MAHARASHTRA. versus NIRANJAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1
~ i
CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MAHARASIITRA.
A
V.
""'
NIRANJAN & ORS.
FEBRUARY 11, 1988
[M.P. THAKKAR AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.]
B
'
-f
,
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950_Quasi judicial functions of
~ ..,,
certain officials-High Court's observation casting reflections on their
-
condition and competence-To be treated as non-existent.
A Division Bench of a High Court made certain observations cast- c
('· ing reflections on the conduct of certain officials and their competence
to decide matters in the quasi-judicial capacity. In the appeal hy special
leave the Charity Commissioner sought redressal in respect of such
observations. A direction against Respondent No. 16 was also sought.
Disposing of the appeal this Court,
D
_.,
HELP: l. The High Co_urt might well have avoided casting reflec-
lions on the Deputy Charity Commissioner who was merely discharging
his judicial functions under the Act. He should have been permitted to
1
discharge his function in regard to the issues arising before him, in the
light of his own independent perspective. The observations made by the
E
Single Judge on merits in regard to the interpretation of the clauses of
!"'
the Will could not have influenced even the trial court. Besides, an
appeal was pending before the Division Bench. Taking a view different
>
from the one reflected in the judgment of the Single Judge could not be
?
said to have been made in scant regard of the judgment; nor can it be
construed as exhibiting disrespect for the High Court. The Division F
"l_
Bench went too far in observing to the effect that what the officer had
done in discharging his quasi judicial functions would constitnte con-
tempt of Court. The official was entitled to take his own view subject to
his decision being questioned in accordance with law. He had not been
;
amiss or at fault in taking the view which commended itself to him and
which he was at full liberty to take under the law. The observations G
made against the Deputy Charity Commissioner should be treated as
y
non-i!xistent. So also the observations made in regard to the mode of
recruitment to the office in question. [950G-H; 951A-E)
2. The status quo in regard to the property in question shall be
H
maintained. Respondent No. 16 shall not get executed or obtain a sale
949
' 950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1988] 2 S.~.R.
A deed in respect of the property in his favour or in favour of his nominees
or assignees till the question is finally disposed of. The Assistant Charity
Commissioner before whom the matter is pending will have full liberty
to decide the matter in accordance with law in the light of his own
perception of the matter without being influenced one way or the other
by any observation made in the judgment of the learned Single Judge or
B in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. (951H; 952A-B]
(The Court directed the Assistant Charity Commissioner to dis-
pose of the matter with expedition preferably within the outside limit of
six months.] l952C I
C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 707
~~M.
·~
D
E
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.87 of the Bombay
High Court in A. No. 969 of 1984.
S.B. Bhasme and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and R.S. Nariman for the Respondent No. 16.
Mrs. Karanjawala and Ms. Meenakshi Arora for the Caveator.
The following order of the Court was delivered:
"ORDER
Special leave granted against Respondent No. 16 in so far as
relief claimed against Respondent No. 16.
The Charity Commissioner of State of Maharashtra has approa-
ched this Court by way of Special leave in order to seek redress in
respect of the observations made by the Division Bench of the High
Court casting reflections on the conduct of the officials of the organiza-
tion and in regard to their competence to decide matters in their quasi-
G judicial capacity. He has also soµght a direction against Respondent
No. 16 who is present by caveat. We are constrained to observe that
the High Court might well have avoided casting reflections against the
Deputy Charity Commissioner who was merely discharging his quasi-
judicial functions under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. He should
have been permitted to discharge his functions in regard to the _iSsues
H arising before him in the light of his own independent perspective. The
/ J ,
,
'
CHARITY COMMR. v. NIRANJAY
951
'"t' observations made. by learned Single Judge, by the very naExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.