1962 (11) TMI 83 - HC - Indian Laws

District Court Upheld in Jurisdictional Dispute, Validity of Appointment Maintained Despite Non-Compliance. Charity Commissioner Denied Revision.

The court dismissed Revision Application No. 347 of 1962, affirming that the District Court acted within its jurisdiction as a Court of Law. Despite ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the terms 'District Court' and 'District Judge' in the context of the Scheme.2. Applicability of Section 56B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.3. Whether the District Court acted as a Court of Law or as a persona designata.4. The validity of the appointment of a Committee member without notice to the Charity Commissioner.5. The discretionary power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of 'District Court' and 'District Judge' in the Scheme:The judgment delves into the historical context of the Scheme for the management of Shri Ranchhod Raiji Temple, originally framed by the District Court of Ahmedabad and later modified by the High Court of Bombay. The High Court substituted the term 'District Judge' with 'District Court,' indicating that the powers were vested in the District Court as a Court of Law and not in the District Judge as a persona designata. This distinction is crucial as it determines whether the District Court's decisions are subject to the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.2. Applicability of Section 56B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950:Section 56B mandates that notice must be given to the Charity Commissioner if any question affecting a public religious or charitable purpose arises in a suit or legal proceeding. The judgment clarifies that this section applies irrespective of whether the public trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The section aims to protect the interests of the charity by ensuring that the Charity Commissioner is notified and can present his views in any legal proceeding affecting the trust.3. District Court Acting as a Court of Law or Persona Designata:The court concluded that the District Court, in appointing or removing a member of the Committee under Clause 7 of the Scheme, acts as a Court of Law and not as a persona designata. This conclusion is based on the interpretation of the Scheme's language, the context of the provisions, and the principle that legal terms should be given their well-recognized meanings. The judgment emphasizes that the District Court's powers under the Scheme are judicial and not merely administrative.4. Validity of Appointment Without Notice to the Charity Commissioner:The judgment acknowledges that the District Court erred in not issuing notice to the Charity Commissioner as required by Section 56B. However, it also notes that the Charity Commissioner did not object to the appointment of Shri Navnitlal Ranchhoddas and that the petitioners had the opportunity to present their case fully. Therefore, the non-compliance with Section 56B did not result in any substantial injustice or prejudice to the petitioners.5. Discretionary Power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The court highlighted that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary. The High Court will not interfere merely on technical grounds unless there is a substantial failure of justice. In this case, since the Charity Commissioner did not oppose the appointment and the petitioners were not prejudiced, the court decided not to interfere with the District Court's order.Conclusion:The Revision Application No. 347 of 1962 was dismissed, and the court held that the District Court acted within its jurisdiction as a Court of Law. The non-compliance with Section 56B, while an error, did not warrant setting aside the appointment as it did not result in any substantial injustice. The Charity Commissioner's revision application (No. 349 of 1962) was not granted, but costs were awarded to the Charity Commissioner from the trust funds.