MADHUKAR NARAYANRAO AGRULWAR Vs. SHRIRAM ZINGUJI BHALAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since parties to the appeal are identical and they relate to the change reports in respect of the same Society/Trust.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows - There is a Society known as Patanbori Education Society, Distt. Yavatmal. It is also registered as a Public Trust. The said society was constituted in the year 1963. The elections of the General Body of the said Society and the Executive Committee were being held from time to time. An Executive Committee was elected by election dated 4-7-2004. The tenure of the said Executive Committee is of three years. Therefore, the elections, in fact, were due in the month of July, 2007. However, it is alleged that respondent No. 1, who claims to be the Secretary of the Society, held meeting on 18-2-2007 of the Executive Committee and decided to hold a General Body Meeting on 25-3-2007. It is alleged that accordingly, elections were held on 25-3-2007 and the new Body came to be elected. Respondent No. 1 was once again elected as Secretary of the said Society. He filed change report No. 86 of 2007 informing that elections were held and the new body has been elected. A notice of this was issued. The present appellants object to the change report. According to them, respondent No. 1 Shriram Bhalavi was, in fact, not taking interest in the function of the society and the school and therefore, his powers to function as a Secretary were withdrawn. It was, therefore, alleged that he had no right to call the meeting dated 18-2-2007 or 25-3-2007. It is contended that, therefore, both the meetings were in fact invalid. It was also further contended that no meeting of the Executive Committee was held on 18-2-2007 as on that date scholarship examinations were being held in the school premises where the said meeting was supposed to be held. They submit that in fact no meeting whatsoever was held on 18-2-2007. It is further their contention that they had informed respondent No. 1 that he had no authority to requisition such meeting since his powers have been withdrawn and he was acting against the interest of the Society.

(3.) The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, who held enquiry found that notices were served on the present appellants and other office bearers of the Executive Committee and they had chosen not to participate in the said meeting. The meeting was valid and he, therefore, accepted the change report. The Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the District Judge confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Hence, Second Appeal No. 99 of 2009 is preferred.