HIDAYATKHAN BISMILLAKHAN PATHAN versus VAIJNATH AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 995 
1\-
~ 
HIDAYATKHAN BISMILLAKHAN PATHAN 
A 
V. 
VAIJNATH AND ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 3267 of 2009 
MAY 05, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - s. 70A -Administration 
i 
of public trust - Elections - Challenge to - Jurisdiction of 
~-
Charity Commissioner/Appel/ate Commissioner to initiate suo 
moto proceedings under s. 70-A - Held: Is limited - A Court of c 
law or a superior Tribunal would not entertain an appeal or 
revision application wherein r;io effective order can be passed 
- For the said purpose not only the fact situation as was 
obtaining on. the date of filing of the application shall be taken 
into consideration but also the events. which took place D 
... 
subsequent thereto - Although no period of limitation is 
.... 
prescribed for initiating suo motu proceedings, such power 
should not be exercised after a long time -
Suo motu 
jurisdiction, as envisaged under s. 70A, need not be exercised 
only because it would be lawful to do so - For the said purpose 
E 
not only the parties are required to be heard but also subject 
to the limitations provided for in sub-section (2) thereof -
Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951. 
Jagatnarayan Singh Swarupsingh Chithere and Ors. v. 
Swarupsingh Education Society and Anr., 1980 Mah. L.J. 372; F 
Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sp/. Secretary to Govt. of 
Haryana Corpn., (2006) 12 SCC 404 and D.N. Roy and S.K. 
Bannerjee v. State of Bihar (1970) 3 SCC 119 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
"~ 
1980 Mah. L.J. 372 
referred to. 
IG 
Para 7 
(2006) 12 sec 404 
referred to 
Para 21 
(1970) a sec 119 
referred to 
Para 21 
995 
H 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R 
A 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3267 
-fo 
of 2009 
~ 
'.-:: --
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in 
B 
Second Appeal No. 769 of 2006 
Himanshu Gupta, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, for the 
Appellant(s). 
Shyam Divan, Uday Umesh Lalit, P.S. Narsimha, Rahul 
• 
Joshi, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Rakesh K. Sharma, Sunil Kumar 
4 
c Verma, Arundhati, Nishant Katneshwarkar, with them for the 
, 
Respondent(s). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 
D 
1. Leave granted. 
' 
2. Marathwada Sarvodya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is a 
..>. 
public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 
(hereinafter called, for the sake of brevity, 'the Act') as also the 
E Societies Registration Act, 1850. Its office is situated at Partur, 
District Jalna in the State of Maharashtra. It was created inter 
alia for the purpose of imparting education to the children of the 
• 
rural area. The constitution of the Trust provides for 15 life 
members out of which 13 would be the ex-officio members of 
F 
the Executive Committee and the other two would be the co-
~ 
opted members from amongst the General Members elected 
by the majority of the life members of the Executive Committee 
which is an elected body. The tenure of the elected body is five 
years. Members of the Managing Committee were elected in 
G an election held on 30th June, 1996. However, before expiry of 
its term of five years, respondent No.1 submitted his resignation 
st 
... 
on 31 
December, 1999. A change report to that effect was 
"" 
filed and approved by the competent authority under the Act. 
3. Fresh elections took place on or about 26th June, 2001. 
H The term of the said Committee expired in 2006. Again elections 
HIDAYATKHAN BISMILLAKHAN PATHAN V. 
997 
VAIJNATH AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
.,. 
were held in the year 2006. However, after the elections were A 
~ 
held in 2001, a change report had been submitted. It was 
accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalna on 5th 
August, 2002. It is stated that about 82 meetings were held 
thereafter and the first respondent participated in almost all of 
them. He had, thus, accepted the election of the second B 
respondent, Babasaheb Akat, as the President of the Trust. 
Since 2001 several changes took place for which 'change 
1 
reports' were filed and accepted by the Assistant Commissioner 
from time to time. 
c 
4. Disputes and differences allegedly arose between the 
first respondent and the second respondent in October, 2003. 
Respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the Joint 
Charity Commissioner questioning the validity of the elections 
held in 2001. The Joint Charity Commissioner by its judgment D 
.. 
dated 4th 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.