The Deputy Charity Commissioner, during the proceedings initiated under Section 41-A of the Act, directed the Trust to conduct elections according to its bye-laws. This included a determination that only those members enrolled prior to the specified date were eligible to vote. The Deputy Charity Commissioner also instructed the Trust to apply for an amendment to its bye-laws under Section 50-A(3) of the Act, following which elections would be held.

Subsequently, an application under Section 73-A of the Act was filed to intervene in these proceedings, which was rejected, leading to Writ Petition No. 4116 of 2019.

The petitioners argued that the Deputy Charity Commissioner exceeded her jurisdiction by delving into the validity of membership during administrative proceedings. They contended that Section 41-A is intended for the administrative management of the Trust and should not adjudicate member disputes. Precedents were cited to support their position, including decisions from the Division Bench clarifying the non-judicial nature of Section 41-A proceedings.

In contrast, the private respondents defended the Deputy Charity Commissioner’s decision, asserting that the findings were justified due to the prior rejection of Change Reports and that only validly enrolled members could participate in elections.

The court critically evaluated whether the Deputy Charity Commissioner was authorized to assess member eligibility within the framework of Section 41-A. It concluded that such inquiries fall outside the scope of administrative proceedings, reaffirming the non-judicial nature of these processes.

The court also addressed the Deputy Charity Commissioner's reliance on the number of eligible members, noting that this finding was based on a jurisdictional error regarding the assessment of membership validity. Consequently, the court set aside the determination that limited participation to members enrolled before May 16, 1999, and emphasized that the issue of membership eligibility should be resolved in appropriate legal proceedings.

Additionally, the court acknowledged that while the Deputy Charity Commissioner had the authority to issue administrative directions, the rationale for amending the bye-laws based on an inaccurate membership count was unsustainable. Thus, it terminated the scheme proceedings initiated under the previous order.

The court upheld the directive for conducting elections but annulled the limitations placed on membership eligibility, leaving the matter of member rights open for future adjudication. The proceedings initiated following the challenged order were rendered null and void, effectively concluding the immediate legal disputes.

In closing, the judgment highlights the delicate balance between administrative authority and the protection of individual member rights within public trusts, ensuring that elections can proceed while safeguarding the integrity of member participation.

This ruling serves as a critical reminder of the need for transparency and fairness in the governance of public trusts, encouraging adherence to legal frameworks while upholding the rights of all stakeholders involved.