Holding

The High Court's observations against the Deputy Charity Commissioner were uncalled for and must be treated as non‑existent; the official is not in contempt and may exercise his quasi‑judicial functions independently.

Summary

The Bombay High Court Division Bench criticised the Deputy Charity Commissioner’s conduct and competence while discharging quasi‑judicial functions under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, prompting the Charity Commissioner to seek special leave before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s observations were uncalled for, should be treated as non‑existent, and did not amount to contempt. It affirmed that the Deputy Charity Commissioner was entitled to exercise independent judgment subject to legal review. The Court also directed that the observations regarding recruitment be disregarded, maintained the status quo on the disputed property, and barred Respondent No. 16 from obtaining a sale deed or execution until final disposal. The Assistant Charity Commissioner was instructed to decide the pending matter within six months, free from any influence of the High Court’s remarks.

Issues considered

What is the effect of a High Court's observations criticizing a quasi‑judicial official's conduct and competence?
Do such observations constitute contempt of court or warrant being set aside?
Can the Supreme Court direct a status‑quo and restrain execution or sale of property pending final resolution?
What is the scope of judicial review over a High Court's comments on administrative officials?

Legislation cited

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950

Subjects

quasi‑judicialcontempt of courtpublic trustspecial leave petitionstatus quoadministrative lawjudicial reviewcharity commissionerrecruitmenthigh court observations

Judgment

1
~

i CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MAHARASIITRA. A
V.
NIRANJAN & ORS.
""'
FEBRUARY 11, 1988

[M.P. THAKKAR AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] B
', -f 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.

A Division Bench of a High Court made certain observations cast-
ing reflections on the conduct of certain officials and their competence
c
to decide matters in the quasi-judicial capacity. In the appeal hy 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, D
_.,
HELP: l. The High Co_urt might well have avoided casting reflec-
lions 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
1 light of his own independent perspective. The observations made by the E
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 F
Bench went too far in observing to the effect that what the officer had
"l_ done in discharging his quasi judicial functions would constitnte con-
tempt 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 G
made against the Deputy Charity Commissioner should be treated as
y non-i!xistent. 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 shall be
maintained. Respondent No. 16 shall not get executed or obtain a sale H

949
' 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 2 S.~.R.

A 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
B in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. (951H; 952A-B]
,
'
(The Court directed the Assistant Charity Commissioner to dis-
pose of the matter with expedition preferably within the outside limit of
six months.] l952C I

C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 707
~~M. ·~
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.87 of the Bombay
High Court in A. No. 969 of 1984.

D 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.

E The following order of the Court was delivered:

"ORDER

Special leave granted against Respondent No. 16 in so far as

F
relief claimed against Respondent No. 16.
,
The Charity Commissioner of State of Maharashtra has approa-
ched 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
J /

Court casting reflections on the conduct of the officials of the organiza-
tion and in regard to their competence to decide matters in their quasi-
G judicial capacity. He has also soµght 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
H arising before him in the light of his own independent perspective. The
CHARITY COMMR. v. NIRANJAY 951

'"t' observations made. by learned Single Judge, by the very nature of A
a
things, were of tentative nature as the learned Single Judge was
decidinr '.he 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 in-
l_fluenced even the trial court. Besides, an appeal to the Division Bench
f was pending. Under the circumstances, taking a view which was diffe- B
· rent 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 im.agination be said to have been made in scant regard of the
judgmenrofthe High Court. Nor could it ever have been construed as
J. exhioiling disrespect for the High Court. The Division Bench went far ·
~too far in observing to the effect that what the Deputy Charity Com- C
• missioner had done .in discharging his quasi-judicial functions would
constitute contempt of Court. Learned Deputy Charity Commissioner
was entitled to take his own view subject to his decision being ques-
tioned in accordance with law before the High Court. The observa-
tions made against the Deputy Charity Commissioner were therefore
altogether uncalled for and unfair. We, therefore, direct that these D
~bservations 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 E ·
learned Deputy Charity Commissioner. We are also of the view that
the observations made in regard to the mode of recruitment to the
J.-. office i.n question were also uncalled for and should be treated as .
non-existent. ·
' .
In the facts and circumstances of the case the Division Bench F
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 th~ Respondent No. 16 in
regard to the relief claimed against him. Both counsel are agreeable to G
+ the directions which follow.

The status qua 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 H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 2 S.C.R.

A Assistant Charity Commissioner or by the Appellate Authority, if any 't
.
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
B 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 'r
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
C pending before him with expedition preferably within the outside limit
of six months. The matter shall stand disposed ofaccordingly. · · \

G.N. Appeal disposed o~.

'