2012 (3) TMI 700 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mismanagement and irregularities by trustees.
2. Failure to protect and preserve trust properties.
3. Unauthorized changes and renovations in the temple.
4. Standard of proof required for removal of trustees u/s 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Summary:

1. Mismanagement and Irregularities by Trustees:
The Petitioner alleged serious irregularities and acts of misfeasance and malfeasance by the trustees, warranting their removal u/s 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Charity Commissioner, however, found that the charges were not serious enough to justify removal, as the trustees were reappointed even after the District Judge's report.

2. Failure to Protect and Preserve Trust Properties:
The Petitioner emphasized the failure to record the names of trustees in the revenue records of the trust properties. The Charity Commissioner held that the current trustees could not be held responsible for the negligence of the previous board and that the Petitioner failed to prove this charge.

3. Unauthorized Changes and Renovations in the Temple:
The Petitioner claimed that the trustees carried out repairs and renovations without the required permissions, violating the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960. The Charity Commissioner noted that the District Judge had acknowledged these irregularities but did not find them severe enough to warrant removal. The trustees were advised to be more careful in the future.

4. Standard of Proof Required for Removal of Trustees u/s 41-D:
The court emphasized that removal of trustees is a drastic action requiring a high degree of proof. The imputation reflecting on the integrity of trustees must be fortified by proof of a high degree, higher than that required in civil proceedings but less than in criminal trials. The Charity Commissioner found that the errors committed by the trustees were not severe enough to warrant their removal.

Conclusion:
The court agreed with the Charity Commissioner's decision that the case for drastic action for removal of the trustees had not been made out. The errors committed by the trustees were not severe enough to warrant their removal. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.