AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
By way of this Writ Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the Order dated 13.03.2026, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur thereby, allowing the Revision Application No.44/2024 against the order of provisional acceptance of change report No. 60/2023.
The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of present petition are that, the petitioners are associated with 'Nav-Prabhat Shikshan Sansta', a registered public Trust wherein election where held for the period of 2017 to 2022 and the change report to that effect is pending before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara, (hereinafter referred as 'Competent Authority') as also in the meantime few trustees were removed and the change report 157/2021 to that effect is also pending before the Competent Authority.
In the interregnum, fresh elections were held for the period of 2022 to 2027, and change report No.60/2023 was submitted before the Competent Authority wherein the present petitioners were elected as trustees. In the said change report application for provisional acceptance of the said change report was also submitted and the said application was allowed by Competent Authority vide order dated 06.09.2023 thereby provisionally accepting the change report No.60/2023.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No.1 filed Revision Application No.44/2024 challenging the order passed by Competent Authority before the Joint Charity Commissioner-II (hereinafter referred as 'Appellate Authority'), stayed the said order. In response the petitioners filed Writ Petition bearing No.2686 of 2025, before this Court wherein this Court quashed and set aside the order passed by Appellate Authority and restored the order passed by Competent Authority and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the revision application expeditiously.
The Joint Charity Commissioner vide order dated 17.11.2025 allowed the Revision Application thereby remanding the matter with direction that the intervention application of Respondent No.1 should be decided first. Unsatisfied with the said order petitioners again approach this Court and this Court vide its judgment dated 20.01.2026 in Writ Petition 259 of 2026 allowed the petition and remanded the mater to learned Appellate Authority.
The Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.03.2026 again allow the Revision Application and remanded matter to Competent Authority to decide the mater afresh. This order dated 13.03.2026 is challenged in the present petition.
I have heard Shri S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate for petitioners, Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Shri C.A. Lokhande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the Appellate Authority erred in not considering the judgment passed this court in Writ Petition No.3296/2020, Writ Petition No.1366/2020 and Writ Petition No.2686/2025. He further submits that Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the circular No.608 issued by Charity Commissioner, wherein it is specifically mentioned that application for provisional acceptance can be filed at the time of filing of change report or during the pendency of change report.
Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the Appellate Authority has exceeded his jurisdiction by entering into and commenting upon the merits, legality, and validity of the Change Report at the preliminary stage of considering provisional acceptance and erred in holding that the pendency of other change reports precluded the Assistant Charity Commissioner from deciding the application for provisional acceptance under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. He has also filed written notes of argument, which I have perused.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, petitioners have no locus standi to conduct elections or manage the Trust, as their claim based on the membership list (Exh. 185) was conclusively held to be bogus and fabricated in earlier judicial proceedings (CR No.142/2008 before competent authority, confirmed in Appeal No.41/2014 before the Appellate Authority, Nagpur and M.J.C. No.3/2015 before the District Judge, Nagpur), resulting in the termination of their membership for non-payment of enhanced subscription fees.
He further submits that the application for provisional acceptance was filed belatedly after more than four months, violating the legislative scheme and the statutory timeline of immediacy contemplated under the proviso to Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
He further pointed out that two competing elections were conducted for the self-same executive body first by the petitioners on 11.12.2022, which formed the subject matter of Change Report No.60/2023 (filed on 10.03.2023), and subsequently by Respondent No. 1 on 22.12.2022, culminating in Change Report No.61/2023 (filed on 28.03.2023). Both cross-change reports are pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara, and Respondent No. 1 continues to be the officially recorded President in the public trust register.
Rival Conditions as advanced by the respective parties fall for my consideration. As can be seen from the Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 6.9.2023 it has provisionally accepted the Change Report Inquiry No.60 of 2023 subject to the final decision of the Change Report. The Revisional Authority i.e. the Joint Charity Commissioner while exercising revisional jurisdiction has remanded the matter to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for fresh hearing by allowing the Revision Application No.44 of 2004. The Revisional Authority i.e. the Joint Charity Commissioner has also given certain directions.
Scope of Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 felt for consideration in Judgment of Banjara Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Mukinda Nandu Chavan and others, reported in 2022 SCC Online Bom. 5103. In the said Judgment this Court after taking into consideration the factual aspects of the matter has held that it is very difficult to accept or arrive at a concrete conclusion that the order of accepting a provisional change report cannot be passed beyond a prescribed period of 15 working days from the date of filing of the change report.
Furthermore, as relied by the learned counsel for the respondents in Judgment of Writ Petition No.7949 of 2024 this Court after taking into consideration the scheme of the Act has recorded in Paras 10 to 14 as under.
10.A bare perusal of the above provisions clearly indicate that Section 22 is a complete scheme, for determination of change report. Original Section 22 contemplates an enquiry before acceptance of the report in prescribed manner. With amendment by addition of three provisos to sub-section 2. power is given to Dy.C.C./Assistant C.C. to accept change provisionally within 15 working days. Once a change is accepted provisionally, notice is mandatorily required to be issued inviting objections to such change within 30 days. Two contingencies are taken into account for adopting further procedure. In case no objection is recorded within 30 days, order accepting change provisionally becomes final and entry thereof shall be taken in register kept under Section 17 in manner prescribed therein. In the second situation, where objections are received within 30 days, an enquiry is required to be held in the prescribed manner and findings are to be recorded, as provided by sub-section 3, within 3 months.
11.From the nature of the amendment, intention of legislature is clear to expedite the decision of acceptance/rejection of change. First proviso does not state literally requirement of an enquiry before accepting change provisionally. However, at the same time, it does not make it mandatory for Dy.C.C./Assistant C.C. to accept the report provisionally, as the language of this provision is that it may pass order provisionally accepting the change.
12.Even by keeping in mind legislative intent behind introducing amendment of expeditious acceptance of change and allowing management of trust by elected managing committee and though no enquiry is contemplated before accepting change report provisionally, such order cannot be passed in ignorance of material already placed on record before the Dy.C.C./Assistant C.C. It cannot be countenanced that objection if any already raised need not be considered. May be till final acceptance of change, it is provisionally accepted, however, implication thereof is that the person whose change is accepted so would become entitled to manage affairs of the trust. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in case of Jagatnarayan Swarupsingh vs Swarup Singh Education Society and another, 1980 Mh. L.J. 372 wherein in Paragraph No. 8 it is observed as under :-
"8.Therefore, though prima facie it appears to be a mere change, the scheme of the Act contemplates qua the change under consideration an inquiry of a Judicial character with an appeal therefrom to the Charity Commissioner and a further application under section 72 to the District Judge and yet another appeal therefrom to the High Court against which appellate judgment of the High Court, a still further appeal may, in a given case. lie under the letters patent. Such being the Judicial scrutiny and the extensive grant of the inquiry under section 22 of the Act, it is obvious that this inquiry can not be a mere factual process or one purely formal in nature. Investigation into the legality and validity of the change is implicit. The inquiry is a judicial process pertaining the character of judicial adjudication. An elemental perquisites or the minimal requirement of a judicial inquiry and a judicial process is compliance with the principles of natural justice. These principles, though not embodies rules, constitute none the less an important facet and pivot of the judicial process. Inquiry behind the back of an aggrieved party is best avoided lest it stands vitiated. One affected must be noticed and heard. Basic lacuna in that respect may well render the inquiry and or the order therein almost non est at least qua the aggrieved absent party left unheard and, therefore, unheeded."
13.With introduction of proviso, the character of proceedings does not get changed. Since it is not intended that in any circumstance change needs to be accepted provisionally, such acceptance requires application of judicious mind. Needless to say that it remains a judicial process and that minimum requirement of adherence of principles of natural justice is mandatory. When it is contemplated by second proviso that objection can be raised to the change and it is required to be decided expeditiously, there is no gain saying that when there is such objection to change on record, it can be ignored and same objection to be considered after acceptance of change provisionally. This could never be intention of the statute.
14.In considered view of this Court, the amended provision needs to be considered not textually but contextually. In the event there is no objection raised to the change report filed within 15 days or where there is no other change report for the period covered by the change report in question is pending for adjudication, in that case, it would be open for the Dy.C.C./Assistant C.C. to pass order provisionally accepting change and for doing so full fledged enquiry may not be required to be conducted at that stage, but opportunity of hearing could be given to the Applicant seeking change, if necessary. The situation however would be altogether different if there is already an objection raised to the change report before acceptance of the same provisionally or there is pendency of another change report for the same period. In such situation, it would be obligatory on the part of Assistant C.C./Dy. C.C. to consider the factum of pendency of another report and to give opportunity of hearing to such objector to grant of change provisionally. There is no logic to differ this exercise post acceptance of change provisionally. Adopting such procedure will not only give opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party in adherence of principles of natural justice but it will make the decision transparent and more accountable."
Thus, even though there is no clear cut embargo to file an application under sub-Section (2) of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 in a pending change report, for accepting the change report provisionally, all facts are need to be taken into consideration.
In the present case, the change report was filed by the petitioners on 10.03.2023, while the respondents filed a change report on 18.03.2023. Thereafter, after a time lag of about more than five months i.e. on 23.03.2023, an application under sub-Section (2) of Section 22 the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioners. It is thus clear that when the application for accepting the change report provisionally came up before the Authority, a counter-change report was already filed and was pending consideration.
In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the Authority i.e. the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara ought not to have decided the application for accepting the change report provisionally and would have proceeded to decide the main change report altogether, in view of the rival claims raised by the parties.
The Revisional Authority, i.e. the Joint Charity Commissioner has precisely done the same and remanded back the matter for fresh hearing. It has also directed the Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide all the pending change reports by conducting the trial as expeditiously as possible. The directions given from clause (a) to clause (g) are, therefore, in consonance with the scheme of the Act and the Revisional Jurisdiction. As far as clause (h) is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said direction which contemplates interim arrangement by appointing Inspector from the Office and Senior Employee of the Institution is without jurisdiction, I agree with the said contention. The said direction No. (h) and (i) are therefore set aside.
As far as clause (j) is concerned, the same is maintained.
With these modifications, the petition is partly allowed and disposed of.