CHARITY COMMISSIONER Vs. VISHRAM BHARATI GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and companion appeals raise an important question about the scope and interpretation of Section 8(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950which shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It arises in this way:In the vicinity of the famous Mumbadevi temple at Bombay there are temples of Shree Ganapati, Murlidhar and Indrayani. It appears that on some representations being made to the Charity Commissioner, in the matter of these three temples, the managers or trustees of these temples were called upon to apply &r; registration under Section 18 of the Act. They having declined to do so and contended that the temples in question are their private properties, the Assistant Charity Commissioner instituted suo motu enquiry in respect of these three temples. In the course of the enquiry, he sent notices to the managers of the three temples and also to the trustees of the Mumbadevi temple. But the trustees of tie Mumbadevi temple, however, informed the Assistant Charity Commissioner that they were not interested in being parties to the proceedings in view of certain technical difficulties and that they would however give the necessary assistance to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for proceeding with the enquiry. After concluding the enquiry the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner upheld the contentions of the managers of these temples, and, therefore, dropped the proceedings. After these orders were passed on May 31, 1967, on May 29, 1968 the trustees of the Mumbadevi temple through its Chairman Mr. Barot moved the Charity Commissioner for exercising his powers of revision suo motu under Section 70A of the Act.

(2.) THE Charity Commissioner made over the matters to one Mr. Huprikar, the Deputy Charity Commissioner, who was empowered by the Government of Maharashtra by a Notification issued under Section 8(2) of the Act to exercise the powers and functions of the Charity Commissioner under Section 70A of the Act. It was contended before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, that since the trustees of the Mumbadevi temple had applied for revising the orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, having - regard to the fact, that they had specifically stated when served with a notice by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, that they were not interested in being1 parties to the proceedings, the revision proceedings could not be proceeded with on the basis of that application. It was also contended that since neither the Mumbadevi trust nor Mr. Barot were persons interested in the trust within the meaning of Section 2(10) of the Act, they had no right to approach the Charity Commissioner by way of a revision application. it was also contended that since the Mumbadevi trust and Mr. Barot were aware of the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and they had not availed of the right of appeal under Section 70 of the Act, the revision application could not be entertained. It was also contended that at any rate having regard to the gross delay in filing that application, the Charity Commissioner should not exercise his discretionary powers under Section 70A of the Act. On merits it was contended that since the Assistant Charity Commissioner had arrived at his decision after proper enquiry, no ease was made out for revising his order. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Charity Commissioner, repelled all these submissions on behalf of the managers of the three temples in question. He pointed out that he was proceeding to exercise the revisional jurisdiction suo motu and, therefore, the fact that Mr. Barot of the Mumbadevi trust may not be a person having interest within the meaning1 of Section 2(JO) of the Act, was of no consequence. He also repelled the contention about the failure of Mr. Barot to avail of an appeal under Section 70, by pointing out, that the Mumbadevi trust or Mr. Barot not being parties before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, they could not have availed of the right of appeal under Section 70 of the Act. He also pointed out that there was no substance in the defence of laches or delay inasmuch as, there was no limitation in the Charity Commissioner exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 70A of the Act. Having thus repelled all the technical objections on behalf of the managers of the temples, the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner on a scrutiny of the judgment of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the material placed before him was of opinion that the enquiry which was made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner was not at all thorough and exhaustive as it was expected in a case of suo motu enquiry. Consistently with that view, he set aside the order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in all the three enquiries and remanded the enquiry proceedings for further enquiry and disposal in the light of the directions given by him in his judgment.

(3.) THE allegations on which the relief was1 sought in all the three applications are briefly to this effect: It was contended that Mr. Huprikar, the Deputy Charity Commissioner, had no authority to entertain or to decide the applications and much less to exercise the powers under Section 70A of the Act. It was contended that the Notification, if any, empowering Mr. Huprikar to exercise the powers under Section 70A was in excess of and was in violation of the scheme and the provisions of the Act. Once again, it was contended that since the Mumbadevi trust had informed the Assistant Charity Commissioner, that they were not interested in being parties to the enquiry proceedings, the Charity Commissioner could not have exercised his revisional jurisdiction under Section 70A of the Act, on the basis of an application which was made by Mr. Barot the Chairman of the Mumbadevi trust. It was also contended that since no appeal was filed by the Mumbadevi trust under Section 70, the revision application under Section 70A could not lie. It was further contended, as was done before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, that there was delay in moving the Charity Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction and that at any rate the Deputy Charity Commissioner had no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and to remand the proceedings for further enquiry.