[1] Both these appeals have been filed under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (for short "the B.P.T. Act") by the appellants - original respondents challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar dated 11.03.2011 in Civil Misc. Application No.37/2010 on the grounds stated in the present appeals inter alia that the Court below has failed to appreciate that Shri Ratnachandraji Maharaj was the Guru of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj who expired on 15.05.1941, established Vardhman Sampraday. It is contended that the Court below has appreciated that Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday, his followers had formed a public trust known as "Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidhyapith, Surendranagar". It is contended that the Trust Deed was made keeping in mind the principles and objects of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday and it was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. After Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj expired on 01.07.1980, the activities of the Trust were carried out as per the Trust Deed and under guidance of Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday. It is contended that Ajramar Sampraday had tried to enter the activities of the Trust by attracting Sadhu's and Sadhvi's of Vardhman Sampraday in their Ajramar Sampraday. It is contended that Ajramar Sampraday was successful in seeing to it that Sadhvi's of Vardhman Sampraday who were disciples of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday, joined Ajramar Sampraday and thereby they had acted against the interest of the Trust and the principles and objects for which the aforesaid Trust was established for Vardhman Sampraday. It is contended that the Trustees of the said Trust illegally carried out various activities including reconstruction work of Upashray and the name of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj was taken out and the name of Jai Ajramar was placed. It is further contended that the activities of Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidhyapith, Surendrdanagar were not being carried out as per terms of the Trust Deed, principles and objects of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj and Vardhman Sampraday. In the meeting of Trustees of Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidhyapith, Surendranagar held on 09.05.2009, a resolution came to be passed whereby it was decided that the activities of the Trust will be managed as per the instructions of Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaji and in every resolution his consent would be necessary. It is contended that this aspect has been appreciated by the Court below that Trustees were acting against the interest of Trust and, therefore, as per the powers delegated to Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj, a resolution dated 05.07.2009 was passed by Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj for removal of some of the Trustees and admission of new Trustees, for which copy of resolution is produced at Annexure - D. It is contended that the names of Poonamchandraji Maharaj and Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday have been removed and even the photo and gaadi of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj, which was kept in the hall, have also been removed.
[2] Heard learned advocate Mr.J. A. Adeshara for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.Gaurang H. Bhatt for the respondents.
[3] Learned advocate Mr.J. A. Adeshara for the appellants has referred to the papers and the impugned judgment and order and made a detailed discussion with regard to the original establishment of the Trust known as "Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidyapith, Surendranagar. He submitted that the activities of Vardhman Sampraday were totally different than the Ajramar Sampraday. However, the activities of the Trustees, is that they have joined hands with the Ajramar Sampraday, and gradually, the trustees carried out the activities contrary to the principles and objects of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday and Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidyapith, Surendranagar. He submitted that when Sadhu's and Sadhvi's were made to join Ajramar Sampraday, some of the Trustees of Vardhman Sampraday had also acted against the interest of the Trust. It is submitted that the resolution at Annexure - D is necessary which was passed by Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj regarding removal of such Trustees. He has referred to the resolution and submitted that the resolution at Annexure - B empowered. Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj to take such steps for removal of six trustees which have been removed after following the due procedure of law and after issuing notice to them. Therefore, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that it is not contrary to any provisions of law, when the resolution has been passed by the majority of the Trustees for removal of some of the Trustees who were acting against the interest of the Trust as well as principles and objects of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday, who established and founded such Sampraday. He submitted that the present appeals may be allowed. Alternatively, it was submitted that some directions may be issued and the matters may be remanded to the Charity Commissioner or Joint Charity Commissioner for deciding afresh. He submitted that the resolution empowering Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj to pass such resolution for removal of the Trustees, which is in force and it has not been challenged. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is erroneous. He has referred to the papers and the detailed submissions have been made to emphasis that Ajramar Sampraday has tried to incline complete capture of the Sampraday and the Trust. He, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be allowed.
[4] Learned advocate Mr.Gaurang H. Bhatt for the respondents has also referred to the papers and submitted that the appeals have been filed on the basis of the presumption that Ajramar Sampraday has captured Vardhman Sampraday and, therefore, the present appeals may be dismissed. It was submitted that the resolution by which the Trustees were removed is in violation of the rules of natural justice.
[5] Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that as the Trust has been found for charitable object, the decision for removal of the Trustees in the past have taken place. It was submitted that no judicial inquiry is made or followed as required under Section 22 of the Trust Deed. He submitted that the inquiry as contemplated under Section 22 has not been held by the Charity Commissioner and the Court below has failed to appreciate that any such Maharaj has not been entrusted with authority to remove the trustees in such meeting. He submitted that on the ground of the mode of succession, no opportunity has been given to the Trustees. He submitted that on such matters of faith and religion, the matters may be remanded for deciding afresh. In the facts of the case, it is not the resolution of the trust for removal of the trustees, but Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj has passed a resolution for removal of the trustees in exercise of powers given to him by the trust in the resolution passed by the Members. Therefore, it was contended that it is not the resolution passed by the trustees of the trust, but simply one person has passed resolution which cannot be said to be followed under the Provisions of the B.P.T. Act. There is no dispute that the resolution has been passed by Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj based on the resolution of the trustees authorizing him to take necessary steps. The provisions of the B.P.T. Act provides for the procedure to be followed for management of the affairs of the trust, the trustees are managing the affairs of the trust and are therefore responsible for the decisions affecting the trust. Further, the resolution which is not passed by the trustees, but which is passed by Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj cannot be said to be provided under the Bombay Trust Act.
[6] Though it is contended about the resolution having been passed authorizing Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj for removal of trustees, it is required to be mentioned that under the Trust Deed, the provision has been made as to how the trustees have to be appointed, and if the resolution is passed authorizing Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj, by itself would not be sufficient, as there has to be a collective resolution for all. Further whether the appellant - trust can challenge such resolution and also the compliance with the provisions of the B.P.T. Act.
[7] The Trust being a legal entity and not a natural person acts through the human agency. Therefore, on one hand, the circumstances in which the resolution was passed authorising Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj is mentioned. At the same time, the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act provide for the procedure to be followed for managing the affairs of the Trust. The trustees who are managing the affairs of the Trust are therefore authorised and are responsible for the decisions for the Trust. In other words, the resolution which cannot be said to have been passed by the trustees or majority thereof cannot be said to be a resolution as provided under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
[8] It is in these circumstances the resolution passed by the trustees authorising Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj for passing the resolution cannnot be said to be valid or whether on the basis of such so-called resolution by which Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj has been authorised can pass the resolution for removal of the trustees. The provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act makes it clear regarding the appointment and removal of the trustees and the procedure to be followed. The submission that some of the trustees had started acting against the interests of the Trust cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence. Vardhman Sampraday may not have followers like Ajramar Sampraday. Again, it is a matter of people having faith in a particular sampraday or religion. Therefore, if the people who had faith in Vardhman Sampraday have voluntarily accepted/shifted to Ajramar Sampraday, there cannot be a grievance.
[9] Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India gives such liberty and freedom to the people to follow a particular religion or faith one desires. The disciples of Vardhman Sampraday who have joined the other sampraday like Ajramar Sampraday cannot be said to have acted contrary to the object of Vardhman Sampraday. The faith and the religion and such other related matters have different angles or reasons where one would have his own religion or faith and it is a matter of perception. If Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India read with the Preamble providing for secular state gives complete freedom and liberty to the people/citizens to follow a religion or faith of one's own choice and also administer the properties, there cannot be any restriction.
[10] The word "dharma" is a Sanskrit expression of the widest importance and there is no corresponding word in any other language. Our Constitution provides 'Dharma Nishargata" when it refers to secularism being a secular state. 'Dharma' is what which sustain the world. At the same time, one must not get confused 'dharma' with 'religion'. 'Dharma' is much wider concept based on universal code of conduct of humanity which guides welfare of the individual and the society. Dharma regulates the mutual obligations of individual and the society. Rules of dharma are meant to regulate the individual conduct, in such a way as to restrict the rights, liberty, interest and desires of an individual as regards all matters to the extent necessary in the interest of other individuals, i.e., the society and at the same time making it obligatory for the society to safeguard and protect the individual in all respects through its social and political institutions...
[11] A useful reference can be also made to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of A.S. Narayana Deekshituli v. State of A.P. and ors., reported in (1996) 9 SCC 548, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the meaning and scope of 'religion' and 'dharma' and had discussed with reference to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
[12] Therefore, people believing in Vardhman Sampraday have found the Ajramar Sampraday as equally better. It cannot be said that they have wrongly taken away. The ultimate goal of 'dharma' is better understanding and upliftment of the society with the spread of knowledge and religious philosophy. Any such narrow angle or approach would run counter to the basic understanding and philosophy of the faith. One the one hand it is said that all religions or religious faiths aim at humanity and better understanding and any such narrow approach, on the other hand, trying to restrict the people to a particular faith or imposing a particular faith or religion is antithesis to any such freedom or liberty guaranteed in our Constitution.
[13] The Charity Commissioner has made an inquiry and It cannot be said that the inquiry under the Bombay Public Trusts Act has not been authorised. Moreover, the explanation that there is some difference in the faith or religious activity is misconceived. Assuming that there is some difference in both the sampradays, it will have very little significance once the freedom of religious faith is accepted allowing everyone to follow a religion or faith of his own choice. At the same time, the word 'secular' which has not been so well-defined, could well be read as 'sarva dharma sambhavana', meaning thereby, equal respect for all religions or faiths has to be believed. Therefore, the gaadi as well as the photo or other aspects of Vardhman Sampraday could not have been disturbed and even if it is now in charge of Ajramar Trust, it could not have been maintained. Therefore, the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellant cannot be accepted that the order is erroneous or perverse.
[14] Moreover, the resolution which is said to have been passed authorising Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj cannot be said to be valid or a resolution by the Trust. It is well-accepted that the affairs of the Trust are to be managed by the trustees or majority of them who could pass the resolution with majority and any such resolution will have a bearing on the affairs of the Trust. Therefore, the resolution for removal of the trustees or for appointment of the trustees has to be passed by the trustees who are in-charge of the affairs of the Trust. The trustees are also required to pass the resolution according to the settlement or conditions of the Trust or in compliance with the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Therefore, when the majority has not passed the resolution who have authorised Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj who in turn is said to have passed the resolution for removal of the trustees,it cannot be said to be a valid resolution for removal of the trustees in eye of law.
[15] Therefore, the ends of justice would be served if the matter is remanded back for deciding afresh by the trustees themselves by passing appropriate resolution.
[16] The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Surendranagar in Civil Misc. Application No. 37/2010 dated 11.3.2011 with a direction that the appellant can apply to the Charity Commissioner for appropriate indulgence or direction for maintaining the gaadi of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday and the trustees of the Vardhman Sampraday shall be at liberty to pass appropriate resolution regarding removal of the trustees themselves in the meeting instead of giving any such authority or power to one person like Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj or anyone. The meeting of the Vardhman Sampraday Trust and/or Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidyapith, Surendranagar (Trust) shall be convened within a period of 8 weeks and all the trustees would be at liberty to pass an appropriate resolution in accordance with law. The indulgence of the Charity Commissioner may also be obtained for necessary procedure and compliance with the Bombay Public Trust Act for the purposes of any such meeting.
[17] With the aforesaid observations and direction, the present appeal stands allowed partly to the above extent.
[ RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. ] vijay Top