Supreme Court of India
CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MAHARASHTRA. versus NIRANJAN & ORS.
- Decided
- 11 February 1988
- Judges listed
- M.P. THAKKAR, N.D. OJHA
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1988] 2 S.C.R. 949 · 1988 INSC 41
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
"ORDER
p. 950, margin E
Special leave granted against Respondent No. 16 in so far as relief claimed against Respondent No. 16.
p. 950, margin E
The Charity Commissioner of State of Maharashtra has approached this Court by way of Special leave in order to seek redress in respect of the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court casting reflections on the conduct of the officials of the organiza-
p. 950, margin F
tion and in regard to their competence to decide matters in their quasijudicial capacity. He has also soµght a direction against Respondent No. 16 who is present by caveat. We are constrained to observe that the High Court might well have avoided casting reflections against the Deputy Charity Commissioner who was merely discharging his quasijudicial functions under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. He should
p. 950, margin F
have been permitted to discharge his functions in regard to the _iSsues arising before him in the light of his own independent perspective. The '"t' observations made. by learned Single Judge, by the very nature of A things, were of a tentative nature as the learned Single Judge was decidinr '.he matter arising out of an interlocutary proceeding. In fact, the observations made by the learned Single Judge on merits in regard . to the interpretation of the clauses of the Will could not have inl_fluenced even the trial court. Besides, an appeal to the Division Bench was pending. Under the circumstances, taking a view which was diffe- B rent from the view reflected in the judgment of the ·learned Single Judge on the part of the Deputy Charity Commissioner could by no stretch of im.agination be said to have been made in scant regard of the judgmenrofthe High Court. Nor could it ever have been construed as
pp. 950–951, margin G
exhioiling disrespect for the High Court. The Division Bench went far · ~too far in observing to the effect that what the Deputy Charity Com- C missioner had done .in discharging his quasi-judicial functions would constitute contempt of Court. Learned Deputy Charity Commissioner was entitled to take his own view subject to his decision being questioned in accordance with law before the High Court. The observations made against the Deputy Charity Commissioner were therefore
p. 951, margin F
altogether uncalled for and unfair. We, therefore, direct that these D ~bservations be treated as non-existent. We wish to make it clear that the Deputy Charity Commissioner has not been amiss or at fault in the · smallest respect in taking the view which commended itself to him and
p. 951, margin F
which he was at full liberty to take under the law. We wish to place on · -+record that nothing said in the judgment of the Division Bench in Appeal No. 969 of 1974 should be construed as a reflection on .the E · learned Deputy Charity Commissioner. We are also of the view that
p. 951, margin F
the observations made in regard to the mode of recruitment to the J.-. office i.n question were also uncalled for and should be treated as .
p. 951, margin F
non-existent. ·
p. 951, margin F
' .
p. 951, margin F
In the facts and circumstances of the case the Division Bench F might will have permitted the Charity Commissioner to be substituted for the appellant before the Court for he was merely making Sincere endeavour in the discharge of his official duties to protect the interest of the charity as he was duty-bound to do, so as to be true to his office. We have heard the learned counsel for th~ Respondent No. 16 in regard to the relief claimed against him. Both counsel are agreeable to G the directions which follow.
p. 951, margin F
The status qua in regard to the property in question shall be maintained and Respondent No. 16 shall not get executed or obtain a sale deed in respect of the property in his favour or in favour of his nominees or assignees till the question is finally disposed of by the H Assistant Charity Commissioner or by the Appellate Authority, if any appeal is carried. The Assistant Charity Commissioner before whom the matter is pending will have full liberty to decide the matter in accordance with law in the light of his own perception of the matter
pp. 951–952, margin F
without being influenced one way or the other by any observation made in the judgment of the learned Single Judge or in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court which have given rise to the present Special Leave Petition. We express no opinion on merits in regard to the effect of the relevant clauses of the Will as indeed we cannot do.
p. 952, margin A
The Assistant Charity Commissioner will dispose of the matter pending before him with expedition preferably within the outside limit of six months. The matter shall stand disposed ofaccordingly. · · \ G.N. Appeal disposed o~.
p. 952, margin B