http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MAHARASHTRA.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NIRANJAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1988

BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 2162            1988 SCC  (2) 506  JT 1988 (3)   113        1988 SCALE  (1)797

ACT:      Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950_Quasi judicial functions of  certain   officials-High  Court’s   observation  casting reflections on  their condition and competence-To be treated as non-existent.

HEADNOTE: %      A  Division   Bench  of   a  High  Court  made  certain observations casting  reflections on  the conduct of certain officials and  their competence  to decide  matters  in  the quasi-judicial capacity.  In the appeal by special leave the Charity Commissioner  sought redressal  in respect  of  such observations. A direction against Respondent No. 16 was also sought.      Disposing of the appeal this Court, ^      HELD: 1. The High Court might well have avoided casting reflections on  the  Deputy  Charity  Commissioner  who  was merely discharging  his judicial functions under the Act. He should have  been permitted  to discharge  his  function  in regard to the issues arising before him, in the light of his own independent  perspective. The  observations made  by the Single Judge  on merits  in regard  to the interpretation of the clauses  of the  Will could not have influenced even the trial court.  Besides, an  appeal  was  pending  before  the Division  Bench.  Taking  a  view  different  from  the  one reflected in  the judgment  of the Single Judge could not be said to  have been made in scant regard of the judgment; nor can it  be construed  as exhibiting  disrespect for the High Court. The  Division Bench  went too far in observing to the effect that  what the  officer had  done in  discharging his quasi judicial functions would constitute contempt of Court. The official  was entitled  to take  his own view subject to his decision being questioned in accordance with law. He had not been  amiss  or  at  fault  in  taking  the  view  which commended itself  to him and which he was at full liberty to take under the law. The observations made against the Deputy Charity Commissioner  should be  treated as non-existent. So also  the  observations  made  in  regard  to  the  mode  of recruitment to the office in question. [950G-H; 951A-E]      2. The status quo in regard to the property in question

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

shall  be  maintained.  Respondent  No.  16  shall  not  get executed or obtain a sale 950 deed in  respect of  the property in his favour or in favour of his  nominees or  assignees till  the question is finally disposed of.  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 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. [951H; 952A-B]      [The Court  directed the Assistant Charity Commissioner to dispose  of the  matter with expedition preferably within the outside limit of six months.] [952C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 707 of 1988.      From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  13.10.87  of  the Bombay High Court in A. No. 969 of 1984.      S.B. Bhasme and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.      Dr. Y.S.  Chitale and  R.S. Nariman  for the Respondent No. 16.      Mrs.  Karanjawala  and  Ms.  Meenakshi  Arora  for  the Caveator.      The following order of the Court was delivered:                             O R D E R      Special leave  granted against  Respondent No. 16 in so far as relief claimed against Respondent No. 16.      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 organization and in regard to  their  competence  to  decide  matters  in  their  quasi judicial capacity.  He has  also sought  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 quasi judicial functions under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. He should have been permitted  to discharge  his functions in regard to the issues  arising   before  him   in  the  light  of  his  own independent perspective. The 951 observations made  by learned  Single  Judge,  by  the  very nature of  things, were of a tentative nature as the learned Single Judge  was deciding  the 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 influenced even  the trial  court. Besides, an appeal to the Division Bench  was pending. Under the circumstances, taking a view  which was  different 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 imagination be said to have been made in scant regard of the judgment of  the High  Court. Nor  could it  ever have  been construed as  exhibiting disrespect  for the High Court. The Division Bench  went far  too far in observing to the effect that what  the  Deputy  Charity  Commissioner  had  done  in discharging his  quasi-judicial functions  would  constitute

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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  altogether  uncalled  for  and  unfair.  We, therefore, direct that these observations 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 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 learned Deputy Charity Commissioner. We are also of the view that the observations made in regard to the  mode of  recruitment to  the office in question were also uncalled for and should be treated as non-existent.      In the facts and circumstances of the case the Division Bench 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 the Respondent No. 16 in regard to  the relief  claimed against him. Both counsel are agreeable to the directions which follow.      The status  quo 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 952 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 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.      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 of accordingly. G.N.                                     Appeal disposed of. 953