http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SAIYAD MOHAMMAD BAKAR EL-EDROOS (DEAD) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ABDULHABIB HASAN ARAB AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/04/1998

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T MISRA, J.      The short  question for  consideration is,  whether the proceedings under  Section 50A  of the  Bombay Public trusts Act, 1950 would abate for the non-substitution of one of the applicants  since   deceased,  and   whether   the   Charity Commissioner has  power under  the Act  to grant the belated substitution  application   made  after   long  the  belated substitution application made after long delay.      This appeal  is directed  against the order of the High Court in  appeal against  the judgment of the learned Single Judge,  who  summarily  dismissed  the  appellant’s  appeal. Earlier,  through   an  application   before   the   Charity Commissioner, a  proceeding  was  initiated  for  setting  a scheme of  a public trust in a proceeding No.5 of 1973 under Section 50A  as aforesaid.  Admittedly, the said application was moved  in the  prescribed from  by two  persons  as  per requirement of  the said  section. On 23rd January, 1979 one of the original applicants, namely, applicant No.2 Hasan Bin Abubakar, died.  It is true that after a lapse of long time, the son  of the deceased applicant moved an application, EX. 44, on  11th October,  1983 for  permitting him to join as a party to the said proceedings as he has interest in the said Trust.  Significantly,  another  set  of  two  persons  viz. Hussain Bin  Avadhabhai, claiming  to be one o the Trust and another person  made  similar  application  under  the  same section for  being joined  also as  applicant  in  the  said scheme.  The   Charity  commissioner   allowed   both,   the substitution of  the son of the aforesaid deceased applicant and impleadment  of the  aforesaid second set of two persons as a  party to  the said  proceedings. The appellant filed a C.M.A against the said order under Section 72(1) of the said Act before  the City  Civil  Court.  The  City  Civil  Court (appellate authority)  confirmed the  order of  the  Charity Commissioner. Against  that, an  appeal was preferred before the  learned  Single  Judge  in  the  High  Court  who  also confirmed the  order passed  by the  City Civil  Court.  The learned Single Judge recorded that it is not in dispute that the  proposed   persons  are   interested  in   the   Trust. Thereafter, a Letters patent Appeal was filed which was also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

dismissed. It is against this, the present appeal arises.      Learned  counsel   for  the   appellant  submits   with vehemence that in all the aforesaid orders, if Rule 7 of the Bombay   Public   Trust   Rules,   1951   was   taken   into consideration, the  conclusion would  have  been  otherwise. Submission is  this, rule  7 read  with  Section  6  of  the presidency  small   Causes  Courts  Act,  1882  (hereinafter referred as  ’1882 Act’)  makes it obligatory on the Charity Commissioner to  follow the  procedure as  prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code, so when one of the applicants died and his heirs  not  being  brought  on  the  record  within  the prescribed time,  the proceedings  would abate  by virtue of provisions under  the Civil  Procedure  Code.  The  relevant portion of  Rule 7,  as relied  by the  appellant is  quoted hereunder:-      "7. Manner of inquiries - Except as      otherwise provided  in that Act and      these   rules,    inquiries   under      ........ or any other inquiry which      the Charity Commissioner may direct      to be  held for the purposes of the      Act,  shall  be  held,  as  far  as      possible,  in  the  Greater  Bombay      Region  in   accordance  with   the      procedure prescribed  for the trial      of suits under the Presidency small      Cause   Courts    Act,   1882   and      elsewhere  under   the   provincial      Small Cause  Courts Act,  1887.  In      any inquiry  a party  may appear in      person or  by him  recognised agent      or by  a pleader  duly appointed to      act on his behalf."      Section 6  of the  Presidency Small  Cause Courts  Act, 1882 is quoted hereunder : -      "6. The Small causes Court shall be      deemed to be a Court subject to the      superintendence of  the High  Court      of  Judicature   at  Fort  William,      Madras or  Bombay, as  the case may      be,  within   the  meaning  of  the      Letters patent, respectively, dated      the 28th day of December, 1865, for      such High  Courts, and  within  the      meaning  of   the  Code   of  Civil      Procedure  and   to  be   a   Court      subordinate  to   the  High   Court      within the  meaning of section 6 of      the Legal  practitioners Act,  1879      and the  High Court  shall have, in      respect of  the Small  Cause Court,      the same powers as it has under the      twenty-fourth and  twenty-fifth  of      Victoria, Chapter  104, section 15,      in respect of Courts subject to its      appellate jurisdiction."      On this submission, two questions arise. First, even if it could  be said, Civil Procedure Code is applicable to the proceeding before  the Charity  Commissioner the proceedings under Section  50A abate  on the  facts of the present case, second, whether  civil  procedure  Code  would  apply  to  a proceeding under  Section 50A? To answer the first question, it has to be seen what is the proceeding before him? What is prerequisite before  he  could  initiate  proceedings  under Sections 50 of the Act ?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    Section 50A(1)(2) and (3) is quoted      hereunder:-      "(1)    Notwithstanding    anything      contained in  Section 50, where the      Charity commissioner  has reason to      believe that,  in the  interest  of      the    proper     management     of      administration of a public trust, a      scheme should be settled for it, or      where two  or more  persons  having      interest in  a public trust make an      application to  him in  writing  in      the prescribed  manner that, in the      interest of  the proper  management      or  administration   of  a   public      trust, a  scheme should  be settled      for its,  the Charity  Commissioner      may, if,  after giving the trustees      of such trust due opportunity to be      heard, he  is satisfied  that it is      necessary or  expedient so  to  do,      frame a  scheme for  the management      or administration  of  such  public      trust.      (2) Where  the Charity Commissioner      is of  opinion that in the interest      of   the   proper   management   or      administration, two  or more public      trusts  may   be   amalgamated   by      framing a  common  scheme  for  the      same, he may, after -      (a)  publishing  a  notice  in  the      official  Gazette   and   also   if      necessary in any newspaper which in      the   opinion    of   the   Charity      Commissioner is  best calculated to      brig  to   the  notice  of  persons      likely  to  be  interested  in  the      trust with  a wide  circulation  in      the region  in which  the trust  is      registered, and      (b) giving  the  trustees  of  such      trusts  and  all  other  interested      persons  due   opportunity  to   be      heard.      frame a common scheme for the same.      (3) The  Charity Commissioner  may,      at  any  time,  after  hearing  the      trustees, modify  the scheme framed      by him  under  sub-section  (1)  or      sub-section (2)."      This empowers Charity Commissioner to frame, amalgamate or modify  a scheme  for the  proper management  of a Public Trust. Under  sub-section (1)  he could initiate proceedings for the  proper management  or administration  of  a  public Trust and  to frame  and settle a scheme. He has two options either to  initiate proceedings sub motu or when two or more persons  having   interest  in  the  Public  Trust  make  an application  before  him,  in  writing,  in  the  prescribed manner. We  find, the  object of the aforesaid Bombay Public Trust Act,  1950 as  revealed through  its  preamble  is  to regulate and make better provisions of the administration of public religious  and charitable  Trust within  the State of Maharashtra. The Charity Commissioner is appointed through a notification under  Section 3  having very  wide powers  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

duties conferred primarily under section 69, Chapter VII and other provisions  of the  Act. It  has been  the concern  of legislatures to  provide with such laws and entrust officers with such  power to  regulate, supervise  the management and functioning of  a public  Trust and endowment in a manner so as to  give optimum  benefit to  the public at large. It was primarily this  lack of  proper machinery  the Bombay  Trust Act, 1935 was replaced by the present aforesaid Act of 1950. It is for this reason, Charity Commissioner and other set of officers are created as watch dogs for effective control and supervision of public Trusts of all kind. Section 35 confers power on the Charity Commissioner in a given circumstance to issue general or special order to permit the trustees of any public  trust   to  invest   money  in  any  manner.  Before alienating any  immovable property  of  a  public  trust,  a previous sanction  of the  Charity Commissioner  is required under  Section  36,  maintain  a  register  of  movable  and immovable properties  to be in a manner as prescribed by the Charity Commissioner  under Section 36B, power of inspection and supervision  under Section 37. Under Section 39 a report is to be submitted to him regarding findings on the question whether or  not a  Trust or  the person  connected with  the Trust has been quality of gross negligence, breach of trust, misappropriation or misconduct which resulted in loss to the Trust. he  can issue orders on such reports under Section 40 and can  direct the  resultant loss  to be charged from such defaulting person, payable to the public trust under Section 41. Section  41A empowers him to issue directions for proper administration  of  the  Trust  and  institute  inquires  on receipt of  complaints under  Section 41B.  He can  suspend, remove or  dismiss any  trustee of a public Trust on receipt of report  under Section  41B. Any  person interested  in  a public Trust  may apply  to the  Charity Commissioner  under Section 47A  for the  appointment of  a new  trustee etc. In cases  of  breach  of  public  trust  including  negligence, misconduct etc.,  he can file suit against such Public Trust or trustee  under Section  50 and  notwithstanding  this  in cases he has reason to believe that for proper management or administration of  a public  trust he may frame and settle a scheme under Section 50A. Section 69 given duties, functions and powers  of the  Charity  Commissioner.  It  is  in  this background Section  50A, for the questions raised, has to be screened. Thus,  we find  that the  Charity commissioner  is crowned with  very wide  powers to  check  and  control  the irregularities,   malpractices   and   misconduct   in   the functioning  of   any  Public   Trust.  Also  to  supervise, regulate, settle  a scheme  for  the  proper  management  or administration of  a public trust, infact involved in almost every step of the functioning of a public Trust.      Section 50A infuses the Charity Commissioner with power in addition to Section 50 to frame, amalgamate or modify any scheme in  the interest  of proper  management of  a  Public Trust. This  is exercised either suo motu when he has reason to believe  it is  necessary to  do so  or when  two or more persons  having   interest  in   a  public   trust  make  an application to him in writing in the prescribed manner. This merely  enables   the  Charity   Commissioner  to   initiate proceedings for  settling a scheme for the proper management or administration  of a  public trust.  In the background of the setting  of various  provisions, object  of the Act, the Charity Commissioner  being clothed with sufficient power to deal with  all exigencies where public Trust or its trustees strays away from its legitimate path and where the materials are before him or placed before him by the said two persons, then to  hold abatement of proceedings on application of any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

procedural laws  not only would amount to the curtailment of his power but make him spineless and helpless to do anything in the matter of public trust eroding the very object of the Act. This is too restrictive interpretation to be accepted.      A procedural  law is  always in  aid of justice, not in contradiction or  to defeat  the very object which is sought to be  achieved. A  procedural law  is always subservient to the substantive  law. Nothing  can be  given by a procedural law what  is not sought to be given by a substantive law and nothing can  be taken  away be  the procedural  law what  is given by the substantive law.      If the interpretation sought by the learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, it would tie the hands of a Charity Commissioner  not to  proceed with settling a scheme inspite of  material placed  before him  only because one of the applicants  is dead.  The  concept  of  abatement  under Section 50A would never arise, specially in such a situation where for  achieving such  an objective  he in  addition  is capped with power to initiate suo motu. It is not in dispute that the  said two  persons have  made an application in the prescribed from.  The proceeding has been initiated in terms of and  in accordance  with Section 50A, this cannot be said to be  improper or  illegal. Once  the material  is  brought before him,  he may  on the  materials or  after inquiry  or after giving opportunity to the person concerned or trustees may or  may not  exercise his  power depending  on facts and circumstances of each case, but his exercise of power cannot be ousted  either on  the death  or withdrawal of any one of the applicants.      Hence, non-substitution or delayed substitution of such deceased person  would make no difference. In this case when initiation of  proceedings is  in accordance  with law which requires consideration  for settling a scheme for the better management, in our considered opinion, the proceeding cannot culminate or  be defeated  on the  principle of abatement as provided in civil Procedure Code.      In fact, as aforesaid, subsequently, another set of two persons also  joined  in  the  said  proceedings  which  the Charity Commissioner  also permitted.  For a  public  cause, this  discretion  of  the  Charity  Commissioner  cannot  be faulted or could be said to be illegal. In the present case, the second  applicant dies on 23rd January, 1979 and his son filed application  for joining  on the  11th October,  1983. This would  make no  difference, even  if he  would not have been substituted,  the proceedings  could have continued and concluded in  accordance with  law. Thus,  the submission of the learned  counsel for  the appellant  based on  Rule 7 is misconceived.  Rule  7  merely  deals  with  the  manner  of inquiries. Manner  of inquiry  has nothing to do with either initiation of  proceedings under  Section 50A or power to be exercised  by  the  Charity  Commissioner  for  framing  the Scheme. It is not raised in this case that any illegality is committed by  the Charity  Commissioner  in  the  manner  of inquiries. The  reference of  Rule 7 was made, only to bring in Section  6 of the presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 for  contending   the  Civil   Procedure  Could   would   be applicable.      Now, let  us examine the second question, whether Civil Procedure Code  at all  is applicable  to a proceeding under this Section.  Reliance is  strongly placed  by the  learned counsel on  the aforesaid Rule 7 of 1951 Rules and Section 6 of the aforesaid 1882 Act. We find Rule 7 prescribes inquiry within the  field it  refers to  be as  far as  possible  in accordance with the procedure as prescribed for the trial of suits by  the Small  Causes Court  under the  said 1882 Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Section 6 of this 1882 Act refers to Civil procedure Code on which strong  reliance is  placed. But  reference  to  Civil Procedure code  herein is  for a limited purpose. it is only to indicate that Small Causes Court to be a court within the meaning of  the code  of Civil  Procedure and  to  be  court subordinate to the High Court. Neither Rule 7; nor Section 6 gives what  procedure is  to be  followed in  a suit  by the Small Causes Court.      We find Section 9 of 1982 Act provides the procedure to be followed. Section 9 is quoted hereunder:-      " 9(1)  The High  Court  may,  from      time to  time, by  rules having the      force of law,-      (a) prescribe  the procedure  to be      followed and  the  practice  to  be      observed by  the small  cause Court      either in  Supersession  of  or  in      addition to  any  provisions  which      were prescribed with respect to the      procedure or  practice of the small      Cause  Court   on  or   before  the      thirty-  first   day  of  December,      1894, in or under this      Act or  any other enactment for the      time being in force; and      (aa) empower  the Registrar to hear      and dispose of undefended suits and      interlocutory    applications    or      matters, and      (b) cancel or vary any such rule or      rules.      Rules made  under this  section may      provide, among  other matters,  for      the exercise  by one or more of the      Judges of  the Small Cause Court of      any powers  conferred on  the Small      Cause Court  by this  Act  or  any;      other enactment  for the time being      in force.      (2) The  law,  and  any  rules  and      declarations made, or purporting to      be made,  thereunder, with  respect      to procedure  or practice, in force      or treated as in force in the Small      cause Court on the thirty-first day      of  December,  1894,  shall  be  in      force, unless  and until  cancelled      or varied by rules made by the High      Court under this section."      So, it  is the  High Court  by rule  to  prescribe  the procedure to  be followed  by the  small Causes  Court.  The procedure is  not what is under Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the argument that proceeding before the Charity Commissioner to be  what is  provided in  Civil procedure Code is without any foundation. The same is accordingly rejected.      So, we  hold in  view of the aforesaid finding that the proceeding under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 would not abate and he has powers to grant substitution even if belated or add parties in the said proceedings.      For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this  appeal which  is accordingly dismissed. Cost on the parties.