Nand Kantaben Janubhai Yodh v. Dipsinh Gambhirsinh Thakor (SC) BS117507

Nand Kantaben Janubhai Yodh v. Dipsinh Gambhirsinh Thakor (SC) BS117507 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 339 of 1987. D/d. 18.7.2000.

Smt. Nand Kantaben Janubhai Yodh (dead) by L.Rs - Appellants

Versus

Dipsinh Gambhirsinh Thakor and others - Respondents

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Sections 72 and 70A - Public Trust - Order made by Joint Charity Commissioner - Application against this order made under Section 72 before City Civil Court - Civil Judge considering that there was no effective disposal of matter by Joint Charity Commissioner and he having not exercised his jurisdiction under Section 70(A) of the Act, held that question of examining the matter under Section 72(1) does not arise - Order upheld by Supreme Court.

[Paras 2 and 3]

JUDGMENT

1. An application was filed before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 against the order dated 27-2- 1980 given by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Before the Joint Charity Commissioner, three preliminary issues had been raised :

(1) Whether this inquiry is barred in view of disposal of Inquiry No. 92/75?

(2) Whether this inquiry is barred by limitation or lapse of time?

res judicata

2. The findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner on preliminary issues were in the negative and the matter ended at that stage. Against that order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, the appellant preferred an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act before City Civil Judge. The City Civil Judge took the view that there is no effective disposal of the matter by the Joint Charity Commissioner and having not exercised his jurisdiction under Section 70(A) of the Act, question of examining the matter under Section 72(1) of the Act would not arise. Against that order a writ petition was filed in the High Court and the same was dismissed at the admission stage. Hence this appeal.

3. We do not think that there are any good reasons to interfere with the order made by the City Civil Judge and there was also no good reason for the High Court to interfere with the order made by the City Civil Judge in exercising its writ jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

4. We, however, make it clear that this order will not come in the way of the appellant to pursue other remedies as may be permissible under the law after disposal of the matter by the Joint Charity Commissioner.

Appeal dismissed.