Judgment:
ORDER
J.B. Goel, J.
1. Arguments heard on interim application for ex parte injunction.
2. Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts (IGNCA) was set up as a Trust in 1987 by means of Government of India Resolution dated 19.3.1987 with the objectives of promoting arts and culture. In pursuance thereof, a Trust Deed was executed and registered initially by 7 trustees. The number of trustees was increased to 21 later on. Clauses 7, 8, 9, 24 and 25 of the Trust Deed were amended by the trustees in its resolution on 18.5.1995. The same is alleged to have been approved by the Government of India as conveyed on 2.6.1995 by the then Minister for Human Resource Development. Unamended trust provided that a trustee will hold office for a period of 10 years, (2) Member Secretary of the Trust was to be appointed by the Government of India; (3) review of the activities of the Trust were to be undertaken by a Committee to be appointed by the President of India as its Visitor; (4) any amendment of the Trust required prior written approval of the Government of India. By this amendment, the changes are effected as shown below.
3. Now Trustees have been categories in three categories, (1) Life Trustees, (2) Ex officio Trustees, and (3) Co-opted trustees and the trustees initially appointed are treated to be Life Trustees entitled to hold office for life and the existing President holds office during lifetime. Power to appoint Member Secretary vests in the Trustee and the power of President of India also taken away. Power to amend the Trust has also been vested exclusively in the trustees without the permission of Government of India.
4. On 7.1.2000, there were 19 trustees. The Government of India by means of four notifications, all dated 7.1.2000 has retired 12 trustees who had completed 10 years and in their places have appointed 12 new trustees, three trustees have been appointed against three existing vacancies and a new Member Secretary has also been appointed.
5. Plaintiff has filed a suit seeking declaration that the amendments made by the Trustees on 18.5.1995 are valid and by way of interim injunction it is sought that the appointments made by the Government of India may not be given effect to.
6. Before the summons could be served, learned Solicitor General of India has put in appearance on behalf of Union of India and has opposed the grant of ex parte interim injunction.
7. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff and also the learned Solicitor General of India.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the amendments made in the Trust Deed were made in accordance with and in due compliance of power to amend under clause 24 of the Trust Deed. The amendment was approved by the Trustees and then approved by the Government of India as provided under Clauses 24. These amendments were made in May 1995 and have remained in operation for over 4-1/2 years without any objection and at such a late stage it is not proper for the Government of India to dispute the legality and validity of such amendment. Moreover, the Government of India has no power to interfere in the autonomous functioning of the Trust. If at all, the Government has any grievance, they have remedy under Section 92 of the CPC. The four notifications issued by the Government of India on 7.1.2000 making the appointments of new trustees and of the Member Secretary in supersession of the existing Trustees and Member Secretary are illegal, invalid and without any authority in law and should not be given effect to till the controversy involved in the suit is determined. The circumstances would justify grant of ex parte interim injunction because effect of impugned notifications would be eroding the rule of law by the Government of India itself in transferring the management of autonomous Trust to itself.
9. Whereas learned Solicitor General has contended that though the Trust was an autonomous body, however, some control was with the Government of India as the Government had contributed a sum of Rs. 50.00 crores as corpus for the Trust, it has granted prime land at Central Vista about 25 acres and had contributed crores of rupees for the construction of the building. The Government of India is thus the funding authority. The Government had authority to appoint the Member Secretary and the working of the Trust could be reviewed by a Committee to be appointed by the President of India. The amendments made by the Trustees are illegal, without jurisdiction and by these amendments the very character of the Trust has been changed depriving the Government of its control which power could not be exercised by the Trustees. Moreover, the amendment could be made with the prior permission of the Government of India and in this case no valid permission had been granted. He has also contended that the relevant Rules of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 have not been complied and as such there is no requisite approval of the Government of India. The 2/3rd trustees were to retire after 10 years who had not retired and the Government of India had to take steps in the matter for functioning of the trust and new trustees have been appointed. In pursuance of the Rules, the Government has also appointed the Member Secretary. It is also alleged that the suit is belated inasmuch as the Government had expressed its intentions, first in November 1998 and then before a Division Bench of this Court in a Civil Writ proceedings in September 1999 that as the amendments were unauthorised, Government could take appropriate steps to remove the illegality and the Division Bench has also so clarified.
10. The main question that has been raised is whether the amendments made on 18.5.1995 are with the approval of the Government of India. Learned Solicitor General has strongly contended that there was no valid approval of the Government as provided under the relevant Rules of Business and the amendments are illegal and as such void and non-est.
11. In view of the pleas and objections raised and the public interest involved, I have fixed the application for interim injunction for hearing on 14.1.2000 on the learned Solicitor General agreeing that he will file reply within two days.
12. Taking into consideration the circumstances and the fact that the Member Secretary has already taken over charge in pursuance of the notification issued by the Government of India on 8.1.2000, ex parte injunction is declined.