Krishna Veer Singh Bachansingh Chauhan Vs. Wasudeo
Motiram Kalmegh & Anr [1995] INSC 443 (30 August 1995)
Jeevan
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1995 (6) 324 1995 SCALE (5)49
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
On August 6, 1990, this Court made the following order
:
Having
regard to the circumstances that the body that is brought into being is an adhoc
managing committee pending final decision by the Joint Charity Commissioner it
appears to us that ends of justice would be met by directing the said adhoc
managing committee, which includes the said Vasudeo Motiram Kalmegh and Suresh Moolchand
Agarwal to furnish accounts of the rents or licence fee collected from the licencees
(who were not-applicants 4 to 7 respondents before the Charity Commissioner)
for the period from April, 1987 to 31st of July, 1990. If upon such furnishment
of accounts and funds are found to be in the hands of the adhoc managing
committee or with Vasudeo Motiram Kalmegh and Suresh Moolchand Agarwal or any
of them, as the case may be, such balance shall also be deposited with the
Charity Commissioner within two months from today. The adhoc managing committee
shall, with effect from the
1st August, 1990
collect the said licence fee and deposit the same with the Charity Commissioner
every month regularly.
This
arrangement shall continue till the matter before the Joint Charity
Commissioner is finally disposed of as envisaged by the order of the High
Court.
Whatever
we have said in this order or whatever may be implicit in it, it may not be
taken into account in the final disposal of the proceedings now pending or to
be taken in future in respect of this Samiti, as this order is intended to
operate as an interim arrangement." Complaining that the respondents have
failed to carry out the said order, the petitioner, Sir Krishna Veer Singh Chauhan
(K.S.Chauhan ) moved the present application for contempt.
Vidharbha
Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Nagpur (Samiti)
is a body registered under the Bombay Trust Act, 1950 having its office at Nagpur. In February 1982, the petitioner, Chauhan,
was appointed as the Secretary of the Samiti. He says that in April 1982, the
respondents, Sri Kalmegh and Sri Suresh Agarwal, forcibly took away the keys of
the office of the Samiti and took control of the affairs of the Samiti. The
petitioner says that he applied to the Joint Charity Commissioner to direct the
respondents (S/Sri Kalmegh and Agarwal) to hand over the charge of the affairs
of the trust to him. Orders were made by the authorities against both the
respondents as prayed for by the petitioner. The respondents were also
restrained from dealing with or alienating or otherwise transferring the Samiti
properties.
On November 3, 1987, the Joint Charity Commissioner
passed the following order :
"Non-applicant
No.1 Prof. W.M. Kalmegh and NA No. 3. Shri Jagannath Jadia are proved to have
committed misfeasance and misappropriation in respect of property of Rs.35,000/-
and 125 cement bags of the trust Vidarbha Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, Nagpur,
PTR No. F-639 (Nagpur) and, therefore, they are hereby dismissed from the
Trusteeship of the aforesaid Trust, PTR No. F-639 (Nagpur)." It is stated
that the respondents challenged the said order by way of a writ petition in the
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
In the
year 1988, the Joint Charity Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings under
Section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act to enquire into the affairs of the
trust.
On
April 21, 1989, the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the
respondents directing the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur "to draw a
list of the persons who belong to category Nos. 1 to 3 of clause -7 of the
Constitution and cause a body of five persons to be elected by them by treating
category Nos. 1 to 3 as an electoral college, within two months from the date
of this order. The petitioners and the respondent No.1 shall thereupon hand
over the charge of the adhoc Managing Committee which will manage the affairs
of the Vidarbha Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Nagpur, until the matter is
finally decided in suo moto proceedings initiated by the Joint Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur, under section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act."
Against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 2545 of 1990 in September 1989. After notice to the
respondents and after hearing them, this Court made the aforesaid order on
August 6, 1990.
In
this contempt petition, the following order was made by this Court on August
23, 1993 :
"We
have heard Sri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri
S.B. Wad, learned senior counsel for the ad hoc trustees.
We are
afraid the compliance of the order dated 6th August, 1990 by the ad hoc
trustees is only partial and incomplete. The ad hoc trustees are directed to
furnish to this Court within four weeks from today an affidavit of the
year-wise break-down of the income and expenditure of the Trust for the years
1982-83 to 1990-91. They shall indicate in respect of each year, now many
tenants or licensees were in occupation of the property of the Trust;
the
specification of the area and extent of such occupation; what was the amount of
rent or licence fee realisable from them; what amounts were actually realised and
what amounts remained unrealised. They shall also indicate in an year-wise
break-up what action was taken by the ad hoc trustees to recover the amounts in
arrears.
That
apart, in respect of the period 6th August, 1990 to 5th
August, 1993, a
similar statement with similar break-down of the figures shall also be
furnished. It would appear that for none of these years the accounts were got
audited by the trustees. The trustees are admittedly governed by the provisions
are the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Provisions of Section 32 and 33
statutorily require the trustees to have the accounts audited. We do not know
how the authorities under the Act permitted or ignored this lapse.
Likewise,
the petitioners shall also file their affidavits giving the necessary
particulars as to how, according to them, the income of Rs. 10 lacs per year.
Sri
Wad submitted that the trustees have produced the books of accounts before the
Charity Commissioner and that they need permission to inspect the books of
accounts. The trustees have such permission.
It
would be appropriate if a certificate of Chartered Accountant is also produced
as regards the accounts.
This
would go in favour of the trustees while examining the rectitude of their
conduct in respect of the management of the affairs and funds of the Trust.
We
would also like to comment on the undue protraction of the proceedings under
the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 which were commenced suo motu by the
authorities. It is appropriate that these proceedings are expedited and the
Charity Commissioner or the Deputy Charity Commissioner, as the case may be,
concludes these proceedings expeditiously and, in any event, not later than
within four months from today. Let a copy of this order go to the Charity
Commissioner for compliance.
Call
on 4th October, 1993. Personal presence of the contemners is discharged."
Meanwhile, the Joint Charity Commissioner concluded the suo motu proceedings
initiated by him under Section 50-A of the Act and passed orders on December
31, 1993 framing a scheme for the trust and appointing trustees thereunder. The
petitioner was appointed as the secretary of the trust. The said Board was
directed to take over charge from the then existing body, whosoever it may be,
and to manage the affairs of the trust in accordance with its objects and the
law. Pursuant to the orders of the Joint Charity Commissioner, the petitioner
says, he obtained possession of the trust properties on August 22, 1994 with
the help of police.
Pursuant
to the order of this Court dated August 23, 1993, the respondents filed certain
audited accounts, the correctness whereof was questioned by the petitioner.
When the matter came up before this Court again on November 10, 1994, the
following further order was made :
"In
this contempt case, this Court made an order on 23rd August, 1993.
According
to the said order, the ad hoc Trustees, who were respondents herein, were
directed to submit year-wise breakdown of the income and expenditure of the
Trust for the years 1982-83 and 1990-91. Indeed, even subsequent to the year
1990-91, they were directed to continue to deposit the amounts and file
accounts so long as they remained in management of the Trust property. It is
stated now that the respondent-ad hoc Trustees were in management of the Trust
property till August, 1994. Mr. S.B. Wad, learned senior counsel for the
respondents says that in compliance with the aforesaid order as well as earlier
order dated 6th August, 1990, the respondents have filed the audited accounts
for the years 1982-83 to 1990- 91. He further submits that the audited accounts
for the subsequent years have been submitted before the Charity Commissioner.
Learned counsel says that in accordance with the said accounts, the deposits
have also been made by the respondents with the Charity Commissioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the correctness of the audited
accounts filed by the respondents.
Inasmuch
as the audited accounts are quite voluminous and also because it is not
possible or feasible for this Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of
the said accounts, we direct the Charity Commissioner, Bombay, to look into the matter. The
Charity Commissioner, Bombay, or such other officer as the Charity Commissioner
may designate, will look into the correctness of the accounts, make necessary
enquiries and verifications as may be called for in the circumstances of the
case, after notice to the petitioner and the respondents herein, and submit a
Report to this Court about the correctness of the said accounts and deposits
which may have been made by the respondents. It is obvious that the Charity
Commissioner or the officer as may be designated by the Charity Commissioner
shall be empowered to receive such evidence as may be produced before him or as
may be gathered by them for the aforesaid purpose.
The
Report of the Charity Commissioner shall be submitted within four months from
today.
Copies
of the order dated 6-8-1990 and 23-8-1993 shall be enclosed to the copy of this order communicated to
the Charity Commissioner." Pursuant to the said order, the Deputy Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur (who was entrusted the job of
submitting the report) has submitted his report dated February 7, 1995. In this report, the Deputy Charity
Commissioner has mentioned the total amount of rent deposited by the
respondents during the period April 1, 1982
to June 30, 1994 and the dates on which the various
amounts were deposited. according to this statement, a total amount of Rs.
92,487.92 p. has been deposited for the said period of over twelve years. The
Deputy Charity Commissioner has reported that it has not been possible for him
to check the correctness of the accounts submitted by the respondents inasuch
as the relevant registers and books of the Samiti have not been made available
to him. He has reported that while the respondents complain that inasmuch as
the possession of the office and properties of the Samiti was taken by the
petitioner by force and with police help, and because they do not have access
to the office of the Samiti, they are not in a position to produce the accounts
and registers to enable the Deputy Charity Commissioner to verify the accounts
submitted by them. On the other hand, the report says, the petitioner
complained that when he took possession of the office and properties of the Samiti
with the police help there were no records, registers and account books of the Samiti
in the office and that only a few properties not belonging to Samiti were found
in its premises. He stated that all the account books must have been taken away
by thew respondents to cover up and conceal their acts of misfeasance,
misappropriation and mismanagement. The petitioner has also submitted that the
income of the Samiti is more than Rs. 1-1/2 lakhs every year and that
depositing a measly amount of Rs.92,497.92p. for a period of twelve years is
not only a non-compliance of the orders of this Court but also a positive proof
of their misappropriation and mismanagement. He prays that the respondents
should be directed to deposit the true amounts realised by them from the Samiti
properties.
Before
we deal with the contentions urged by the parties, we feel constrained to
reiterate the observations made by this Court in its order dated August 23, 1993 with respect to "undue protraction
of the proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 which were commenced
suo motu by the authorities". The authorities in-charge of ensuring proper
management of public trusts should be more vigilant and prompt in discharge of
their duties. Delays on their part only help the unscrupulous persons in
wasting the trust properties and in other acts of misfeasance. The facts of
this case show how the validly appointed persons have been thwarted by the
respondents from coming into possession of the properties and office of the
trust. It would not be unreasonable to assume in the circumstances of this case
that the respondents who somehow came into possession and management of the
trust properties were interested in protracting their control and management by
one or the other means, obviously with a view to enrich themselves unjustly at
the cost of the trust and its properties. The table contained in the report of
the Deputy Charity Commissioner discloses that the first deposit by the
respondents is in a grand sum of Rs. 124.92p. on October 4, 1990. Several amounts have been deposited thereafter from time
to time.
Prima
facie it is not explicable how it is that for the period April 1, 1982 to July 31, 1990 only a sum of Rs. 124.92p. was be available and why was it
deposited after a lapse of eight years. For subsequent period, various amounts
have been deposited but neither there is any consistency in the amounts
deposited nor is there any regularity in the timing of the deposits. In the
circumstances, this is a proper case where a reasonable ascertainment should be
made of the income derived and expenditure incurred by the respondents for the
period April 1, 1982 to August 22, 1994, the period during which they where in
management and control of the affairs and the properties of the trust. No
doubt, they have filed certain audited accounts but the correctness of the said
accounts is disputed by the petitioner. The Deputy Charity Commissioner has
also not reported that the said audited accounts are acceptable. There is a
controversy with respect to the custody and possession of the relevant account
books and registers. In this contempt case, it is not possible to go into the
truth or otherwise of the rival contentions with respect to the custody and possession
of the books and accounts. At the same time the matter cannot be left as it is,
more particularly, in view of the fact that not a single paise was deposited
for the period April 1,
1982 to July 31, 1990 except a petty sum of Rs. 124.92p.
on October 4, 1990. The respondents cannot be allowed
to get away trust funds just because the relevant account books have been made
scarce. The income and expenditure can yet be ascertained by other means. In
the circumstances, the following direction is made: the Deputy Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur shall make a best-judgment estimate
of income of the trust properties for the period April 1, 1982 to August
22, 1994 after making
such appropriate enquiries as he may find necessary. He can, of course, look
into and consider the audited accounts filed by the respondents in this
connection. He shall also make an estimate of the expenditure which was
reasonably required for running and managing the trust and trust properties.
This exercise will disclose the amount that should have been deposited by the
respondents for the said period. After giving credit to the amount already
deposited, we can then direct recovery of the balance from the person and
properties of the respondents by taking appropriate proceedings according to
law.
All
the immovable properties of the respondents are attached herewith. The
attachment shall continue until final orders are passed in this case. The
Deputy Charity Commissioner shall give effect to this order by making
appropriate directions.
The matter
is adjourned by four months. List after four months. The Deputy Charity
Commissioner shall send a report of the proceedings taken and orders passed by
him in the said period of four months pursuant to thia order.
Back