WP.1577.2022.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1577 OF 2022 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 804 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1577 OF 2022 Rajendra Dharma Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus Manoj Sanjay Deshpande and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Manoj Harit a/w. Ms. Saoni Dhawale, Advocates i/by Manoj Harit and Co. for Petitioner / Applicant.  Mr. Hrishikesh Sopan Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.1.  Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 09, 2025. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Harit, learned Advocate for Petitioner / Applicant; Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Ms. Jadhav, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State. 2. Petitioner is President of Gram Shikshan Samiti, Village Tingari, Taluka Malegaon Distiric Nashik (for short ‘the Samati’) Respondent No.1 is Secretary of the said Samiti. The Gram Panchayat Samiti is registered as a Public Trust and is amenable to the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short ‘MPT Act’). Petitioner is the Member of the Samiti. Respondent No.1 is the ex- President of the Samiti prior to appointment of Petitioner. 1 of 6 WP.1577.2022.doc 3. On 05.10.2018 meeting of the Trustees was held. Meeting was attended by six out of eight Trustees including Petitioner and Secretary namely Arun Ahire. President namely Respondent No.1 and another Trustee Mr. Devman Bhamare remained absent. In that meeting, Subject No.3 was discussed which pertained to removal of President from the post in view of this activities against the interest of the Trust. This subject was discussed amongst the Trustees and Resolution was passed unanimously to remove Respondent No.1 from the post of President. In the same meeting, Subject No.4 was discussed which pertained to appointment of new President in place of Respondent No.1. Out of the six Members present name of Petitioner was suggested and supported by the remaining Members unanimously to be appointed as President for the remaining period of the tenure. In this Resolution appointing Petitioner as President it was stated that the Court had fixed the tenure. Tenure was from 2016 to 2019. Out of the six Trustees present five were Members whereas one Trustee was the Secretary i.e. Office Bearer of the Trust. 4. Trust filed Change Report No.5329 of 2018 for notifying removal of Respondent No.1 as Chairman and substituting him by Petitioner as President of Trust. Annexed to Change Report were the Minutes of meeting dated 05.10.2018. 5. Mr. Harit, learned Advocate for Petitioner would submit that 2 of 6 WP.1577.2022.doc the Assistant Charity Commissioner has by order dated 04.09.2019 after conducting inquiry under Section 22 of the MPT Act allowed Inquiry Application Change Report No.5329 of 2018 and permitted name of Petitioner to be recorded in Schedule–I for the remaining tenure 2018 to 2019. The tenure of appointment of Petitioner as President is clarified for the first time in this order. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved filed Appeal No.130 of 2019 before the Joint Charity Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 14.07.2021, Joint Charity Commissioner has allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 04.09.2019 passed in Inquiry Application No.5329 of 2018. Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present Writ Petition. It is informed by Mr. Harit that despite the tenure being over in 2019, the Trustees have continued thereafter due to the pendency of the present Petition. 6. Both the learned Advocates have argued upon the Resolution passed unanimously in the meeting held on 05.10.2018. The Minutes are appended at page No.75. I have perused the same. The Trust Deed is placed before me. In the additional compilation of documents at page No.30 by Mr. Harit has drawn my attention to Clause no. 14 of the Tust Deed which is clear and unambiguous. It clearly states that for the Managing Committee meeting of the Trust, the quorum will be of 7 members out of which two office bearers will have to be present in the meeting. Once this is the position for proper 3 of 6 WP.1577.2022.doc quorum then in that case the minutes dated 5.10.2018 have to be revisited. It is seen that only 6 members attended the Managing Committee meeting out of the total 9 members on that date Mr. Harit informs the Court that one member of the MC had expired and 2 members namely Petitioner and Mr. Devman Bhamare did not attend the meeting. Thus only 6 members attended the meeting in which the resolution to remove the President namely the Petitioner was unanimously passed. Out of the 6 persons who attended the MC meeting there was only one office bearer namely Mr. Arun Ahire Secretary who attended the meeting. From the above it is seen that neither the quorum was complete as per clause 14 of the Trust Deed of 7 members nor there were 2 office bearers present who attended the meeting. Both the learned Advocates inform the Court that President Mr. Manoj Deshpande and Secretary Mr. Arun Ahire were the only 2 office bearers and one of them i.e. the President did not attend the meeting. In view of the above once the quorum was not in place any resolution passed by the Managing Committee could never had been justified. It was nonst at the outset. The fact that only 6 MC members attended the meeting and passed the resolution for removal of Respondent no. 1 is therefore contrary to and not in consonance with clause 14 of the Trust Deed. While dealing with the Change Report this aspect has not been gone into either by the Assistant Charity Commissioner or by the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is further 4 of 6 WP.1577.2022.doc observed that names of Managing Committee members were to be recorded in Schedule I for the period 2016 to 2019. The order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner is dated 15.05.2019. That order even if had been correctly passed could be sustained however the next order dated 14.07.2021 of Joint Charity Commissioner which is impugned in the present petition is passed on 14.07.2021 i.e. beyond the tenure prescribed in the present case. On this ground alone the order of Joint Charity Commissioner is also not sustainable. 7. Be that as it may, constitution of the Trust Deed lays down the procedure for conducting MC meeting and the quorum for such meeting. The meeting dated 05.10.2018 only 6 members of the trust were present and quorum was therefore not complete. Thus any decision taken in such a meeting was violative of clause 14 of the Trust Deed and therefore unsustainable in law and it could never have been implemented. 8. As a sequitur of the above, both the orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner are quashed and set aside. The Change Report no. 5329 of 2018 and inquiry carried out there under is also quashed and set aside since it does not delve on the aspect of quorum and simplictor accepts Resolution no. 3 and 4 for acceptance as if they are validly passed. 9. It is seen from record and order dated 15.09.2018 that 5 of 6 WP.1577.2022.doc names of the trustee was to be added for the period of 2016 to 2019. It is seen that in the previous Inquiry Applications 15 of 2013, 03 of 2014, 4 of 2014 and 19 of 2014 the Joint Charity Commissioner has appointed 9 persons as the Managing Committee of the trust for a period of 3 years. From the above it is clear that the 3 year period for which the present dispute is argued before the Court is already over hence there can be no cause for continuity of the same members. In view of the above I direct the Joint Charity Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry under Section 22 and appoint 9 persons as Managing Committee Members of the trust in accordance with law and by following the due process of law. 10. All questions of Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 are determined since the tenure 2016 - 2019 is over. However if they wish to get themselves re-appointed as MC members and if they are eligible as also any other member / their candidature will be considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the inquiry which will be conducted for appointed of MC in accordance with law. 11. With the above directions the Writ Petition is disposed. 12. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Interim Application also stands disposed of. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 6 of 6 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.12.11 15:16:23 +0530