Trustee removal requires proof of active participation; group association alone cannot sustain malfeasance findings or sweeping administrative directions.

Locus standi existed for the appellants to challenge the exoneration of trustees of Group "G" because the proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act were initiated against the trustees as a group and the appellants were aggrieved by that exoneration. Removal for malfeasance or misfeasance under Section 41D required reliable proof of active participation or connivance, so the findings were sustainable only against appellant Nos. 1 and 4 and not against the remaining appellants. The salary-underpayment finding was likewise justified only against appellant Nos. 1 and 4. The broad direction authorising Group "G" to administer the trust and appoint trustees was not sustainable in the form granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the exoneration of the trustees of Group "G"; (ii) whether the finding that malfeasance and misfeasance were proved against all the appellants on account of collection of donations and non-accounting of amounts was perverse; (iii) whether the finding that appellant No. 1 paid less salaries to employees and the others assisted or connived with him was perverse; and (iv) whether the direction authorising Group "G" to administer the trust and appoint other trustees was within jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the exoneration of the trustees of Group "G".

Analysis: The proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act were initiated against the trustees as a group, and the appellants had themselves sought action against the trustees of Group "G". In that setting, the appellants were aggrieved persons in relation to the exoneration of Group "G" and could maintain the challenge.

Conclusion: The appellants had locus standi.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding that malfeasance and misfeasance were proved against all the appellants on account of collection of donations and non-accounting of amounts was perverse.

Analysis: The record supported the conclusion only against those who were shown to have actively participated in the collection of illegal donations and the maintenance of separate accounts. Removal of a trustee under Section 41D requires a serious charge to be proved by a fairly high standard, and mere omission or association without material proof of active participation or connivance was insufficient. The evidence did not justify roping in all appellants merely because they belonged to the same group or did not prevent the acts of others.

Conclusion: The finding was sustainable only against appellant Nos. 1 and 4, and was unsustainable against the remaining appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the finding that appellant No. 1 paid less salaries to employees and the others assisted or connived with him was perverse.

Analysis: The material supported the inference that reduced salary payments were made and that appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 4 were connected with the transactions. However, there was no sufficient material to show that the remaining appellants were concerned with salary distribution or had any complicity in the alleged underpayment.

Conclusion: The finding was justified only to the extent of appellant Nos. 1 and 4 and was erroneous against the other appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether the direction authorising Group "G" to administer the trust and appoint other trustees was within jurisdiction.

Analysis: In view of the later appointment of an administrative committee and the limited material on record, the sweeping direction empowering Group "G" to take charge and appoint trustees could not be sustained in the manner granted by the lower court.

Conclusion: The direction was not sustainable in the form granted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part. The orders were maintained against appellant Nos. 1 and 4, while the remaining appellants were exonerated from the charges of malfeasance and misfeasance, and the impugned direction in favour of Group "G" was not upheld to the extent it travelled beyond the proven material.

Ratio Decidendi: Removal of a trustee under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 can be sustained only when active participation, connivance, or breach of trust is proved by reliable material to the requisite standard, and group association or passive omission alone is insufficient.

---