1998 (4) TMI 563 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: No Abatement for Deceased Applicant in Trust Act Proceedings. Charity Commissioner can allow belated substitutions.

The Supreme Court ruled that proceedings under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 would not abate due to the non-substitution of a deceased ... Abatement of proceedings - substitution of parties - Charity Commissioner's power to frame, amalgamate or modify a scheme under Section 50A - procedural law subordinate to substantive law - applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to statutory proceedings under Section 50A - manner of inquiries under Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951Abatement of proceedings - Charity Commissioner's power to frame, amalgamate or modify a scheme under Section 50A - procedural law subordinate to substantive law - Proceedings under Section 50A do not abate for non-substitution of an original applicant who dies. - HELD THAT: - Section 50A empowers the Charity Commissioner to initiate, frame, amalgamate or modify schemes for proper management or administration of public trusts, either suo motu or on application by interested persons. That substantive statutory power is intended to secure effective supervision and management of public trusts. A procedural consequence such as abatement, derived from ordinary civil procedure, cannot be allowed to curtail or defeat the substantive remedial scheme enacted by the statute. Where proceedings are validly initiated under Section 50A and material is before the Charity Commissioner, the death of one applicant and failure to substitute heirs within a prescribed civil-procedure timeframe does not terminate or abate the statutory proceedings; procedural rules operate in aid of justice and are subordinate to the substantive purpose and powers conferred by the Act. Applying that principle, the proceedings in the present case could continue despite the non-substitution or delayed substitution of the deceased applicant.Proceedings under Section 50A do not abate on account of the death of an applicant and failure to substitute within a prescribed civil-procedure period.Substitution of parties - Charity Commissioner's power to frame, amalgamate or modify a scheme under Section 50A - The Charity Commissioner has power under the Act to allow belated substitution or to permit addition/impleadment of parties in proceedings under Section 50A. - HELD THAT: - Given the wide supervisory and regulatory remit of the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, including powers to inquire, frame and modify schemes for trusts, the Commissioner is vested with discretion to permit persons interested in the trust to be joined or substituted even after delay. The Commissioner's exercise of discretion to allow substitution or add parties for a public cause and for effective determination of issues concerning trust administration is not rendered illegal merely because the application for substitution is belated. In the present matter the Charity Commissioner permitted substitution and additional parties; that exercise of discretion was within the statutory scheme and could not be faulted on grounds that the substitution was delayed.The Charity Commissioner may grant substitution or permit addition of parties in Section 50A proceedings even if the application for substitution is belated.Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to statutory proceedings under Section 50A - manner of inquiries under Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951 - The Code of Civil Procedure is not automatically applicable to proceedings under Section 50A by virtue of Rule 7 read with Section 6 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. - HELD THAT: - Rule 7 prescribes that inquiries should, as far as possible, be held in accordance with the procedure prescribed for trial of suits by Small Causes Courts; Section 6 of the 1882 Act indicates the Small Causes Court is to be deemed a court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the reference is limited and does not itself import the entirety of the Code into Section 50A proceedings. Section 9 of the 1882 Act empowers the High Court to prescribe the procedure to be followed by Small Causes Courts; the procedure for those courts is therefore a matter of rules made by the High Court rather than direct application of the Code. Consequently, the submission that Civil Procedure Code controls or causes abatement of Section 50A proceedings is unsound and is rejected.The Code of Civil Procedure does not automatically apply to proceedings under Section 50A by virtue of Rule 7 and Section 6 of the 1882 Act; Rule 7 does not render Section 50A proceedings subject to CPC abatement rules.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. Proceedings under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act do not abate by reason of non-substitution of a deceased applicant; the Charity Commissioner may allow belated substitution or addition of parties in such proceedings; and the Code of Civil Procedure is not automatically applicable to Section 50A proceedings by virtue of Rule 7 or Section 6 of the 1882 Act. Issues Involved:1. Whether the proceedings u/s 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 would abate for the non-substitution of a deceased applicant.2. Whether the Charity Commissioner has the power to grant a belated substitution application.3. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code to proceedings u/s 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Abatement of ProceedingsThe Supreme Court examined whether the proceedings u/s 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 would abate due to the non-substitution of a deceased applicant. The Court held that the concept of abatement under Section 50A would never arise, especially when the Charity Commissioner has the power to initiate proceedings suo motu. The Court emphasized that the procedural law is subservient to substantive law and should aid justice rather than defeat it. Therefore, non-substitution or delayed substitution of a deceased person would make no difference, and the proceedings cannot culminate or be defeated on the principle of abatement as provided in the Civil Procedure Code.Issue 2: Power to Grant Belated SubstitutionThe Court affirmed that the Charity Commissioner has the power to grant a belated substitution application. The Court noted that the Charity Commissioner is empowered to frame, amalgamate, or modify a scheme for the proper management of a public trust. The proceedings initiated in accordance with Section 50A cannot be considered improper or illegal due to delayed substitution. The Charity Commissioner's discretion in allowing the substitution of the deceased applicant's son and the impleadment of another set of two persons was upheld as legal and appropriate.Issue 3: Applicability of Civil Procedure CodeThe Court addressed whether the Civil Procedure Code applies to proceedings u/s 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Court found that Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951, and Section 6 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, do not mandate the application of the Civil Procedure Code to such proceedings. Rule 7 merely deals with the manner of inquiries and does not affect the initiation of proceedings or the powers of the Charity Commissioner. The Court concluded that the argument for applying the Civil Procedure Code to proceedings before the Charity Commissioner is without foundation and thus rejected it.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the proceedings u/s 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, would not abate due to non-substitution of a deceased applicant, and the Charity Commissioner has the power to grant belated substitution applications. The Civil Procedure Code does not apply to proceedings u/s 50A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs on the parties.