Nitin Manohar Shinde vs Ashokrao Shankarrao Kale & Ors.

The Petitioner takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner-II, Pune on 30-07-2024 in Revision Application No.67 of 2022. Vide the impugned order, challenge to the change report approved by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner vide order dated 09-12-2019 in Change Report No.1292 of 2018, has been turned down.

Subject-matter : ‘Change in the name of a Public Trust’ is the subject-matter of the Petition. Challenge rests on twofold grounds i.e. (i) Permissibility sub-issues which eventually arise for consideration.

Case laws: While the Petitioner relied upon a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal no.5008 of 2018, respondent side relied upon the provisions of law.

For discussing the issues raised in the petition, I referred to (i) a Judgment and Order delivered by Division Bench of this Court in a case reported at Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti and Anr. vs. Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra and Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3740]; and followed by Single Bench in (ii) National Egg Co-ordination Committee vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported at 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2410.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard for final disposal.

The Petitioner was then holding the post of President, Indian National Congress party, Kopargaon. He was party’s primary member.

Out of the donations collected from the party members, the then party members purchased properties bearing CTS No.1213 and CTS No.1214 at Kopargaon for the purpose of erecting Party house.

In the year 1987, three members of the Party formed a public trust namely ‘Congress Bhavan Trust, Kopargaon’. The trust was registered at PTR No.E-347/Ahmednagar. An Inquiry Application No.96 of 1987 was filed for registration of the Trust, which came to be approved on 29-09-1987.

A Scheme Application No.06 of 2002 was also filed by the Trustees for framing of a trust scheme. The application came to be allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 28-06-2002 by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner Ahmednagar region.

The trust, which was formed by the party members of the Indian National Congress used the premises constructed on the aforementioned plots for party activities.

In due course of time, change reports were filed from time to time corresponding to the change in the trustee members.

A Change report No.451 of 2016 was filed for incorporating names of three new persons consequent to death of three trustees. After inquiry, the Change report No.451 of 2016 was allowed whereby names of present Respondent nos. 1, 3 and one Mr. Sanjay Rohmare came to be incorporated as trustees.

Soon after the Change Report no.451 of 2016 was allowed, Five members of the Trust conducted a meeting wherein on 22-04-2018, a resolution was passed to change trust name from ‘Congress Bhavan Trust Kopargaon’ to ‘Shri Saibaba Trust, Kopargaon’. Accordingly a Change Report No.1292 of 2018 was filed in the office of the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar.

Learned Deputy Charity Commissioner neither issued any paper notice nor even issued notice to the Petitioner, and yet allowed the Change Report no.1292 of 2018. It is only on 15-08-2022, the Petitioner learnt about the change.

The Trust itself was formed with an objection of promoting the activities of Indian National Congress, and none else. Utilization of the property is meant only and only for conducting activities of the Indian National Congress party at Kopargaon. Change report no.1292 of 2018 didn’t remain to the extent of change in name, but practically the object of the Trust itself has been washed out.

The authorities ought to have considered this aspect of the matter. Change in name must not be allowed which de-effect object of the forming a Trust. The original trust name denotes object of the trust which is for conduct trust. The original trust was never a religious trust.

Both the authorities failed to consider that Section 22 of the Act of 1950 was wrongly invoked by the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 for effecting change in name, instead of Section 50-A of the Act of 1950.

No principles of natural justice were followed while allowing the change in trust name nor the authority observed the procedure.

With this, the Petitioner concludes his argument praying to struck down the Change report No.1292 of 2018 thereby setting aside the orders passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner and the learned Joint Charity Commissioner.

There is neither any legal defect nor any procedural defect in approval of the Change Report No.1292 of 2018.

Change in name of the trust is absolutely permissible as per the provisions of the Act of 1950 and the Rules thereunder.

Section 22 R/w Section 17 of the Act of 1950 with Rules 5, 8 and 13 of the Rules and the Schedule I clearly demonstrate that there is no legal hurdle in changing name of a trust.

No provision requires a public notice to be published in newspaper for effecting change in the trust name.

Inquiry u/s 22 of the Act of 1950 was duly conducted by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, which is rightly approved by the revision authority u/s 70A of the Act of 1950.

The Petitioner did not have any locus standi to file the revision itself.

Reference and reliance on Section 50-A is misconceived at the behest of the Petitioner.

With this, Mr. Gadhe concludes his arguments praying to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader echoes the arguments of Respondent nos. 1 to 3.

He submits that there is no procedural defect in passing both the orders by respective authorities.

The change and change report is absolutely permissible. Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner exercised such jurisdiction which is conferred on him u/s 22 of the Act of 1950. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner is the Revision Authority having overall control and supervision over the subordinate authorities. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has examined the record of the subject-matter change report and the order passed by learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, and found that there is no illegality.

With these submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader too, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Challenge in the present petition is only to the extent of Change in the Trust name. Considering the rival arguments, I find that following issues emerge for consideration :

In the light of above issues, the objection raised by the Petitioner, and the defense of the Respondent nos.1 to 3, it is required to see whether Section 22 of the Act of 1950 permits such change.

Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1950 speaks thus:

Thus, the procedure u/s 22 covers recording a change of the entries recorded in the register kept u/s 17 of the Act of 1950. Hence we now look into Section 17 which reads thus:

Rule 5 of the Rules of 1951 under the Act of 1950 provides thus:

So, Section 17 and Rule 5 bring into picture, Schedule-I i,e. register of public trusts. The register contains total 28 entry columns. At Column no. 2 of the Schedule-I, there is entry of Trust name.

Further, Rule 13 of the 1951 Rules speaks that,

Going back to Rule 8-A, it is clear that the Rules even provide for the procedure to be adopted post change in the name. Rule 8-A reads thus:

That means the law recognizes change in the trust name. This Court while deciding the legality of a circular issued by the Charity Commissioner directing deletion of certain portion from a category of public trusts which was done as a change in the trust name, held that ‘change in the trust name is permissible only at the behest of the trustees’. It was a case of jurisdiction and power of the Charity Commissioner to direct change in the trust name. In case of Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti v. Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3740], this Court observed at paragraph No.25 thus:

This view is adopted by learned Judge of Single Bench of this Court in the case of National Egg Co-ordination Committee (supra) re-iterated the law referred in the case of Manvi Hakka (supra). It was also a case wherein an Authority has directed to delete the word ‘National’ from the trust name. It was re-iterated that such change in name is not permissible in view of the Manvi Hakka case (supra).

Thus, it is abundantly clear that change in trust name is permissible in the Act of 1950 at the instance of the Trustees. The Rules provide for the procedure. Reading the provision under the Act and the Rules in harmoniously, it is apparent that change in any entry in the particulars mentioned at Schedule-I of the 1951 Rules can be undertaken u/s 22 of the Act of 1950. Thus, the 1^st issue framed above stands answered.

Now it needs to see whether Section 50-A of the Act of 1950 ought to have been invoked by the Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Text of Section 50-A reads thus ;

Ex-facie, the power to be exercised u/s 50-A of the Act of 1950 is for framing, amalgamating or modifying a scheme. In the case in hand, the Change Report is only in respect of change in Trust name from ‘Congress Bhavan Trust, Kopargaon’ to ‘Shri Saibaba Trust Kopargaon’.

Learned advocate for the Petitioner was at pains to agitate that change in name is in such a fashion and style, that it has virtually dropped the original scheme framed by the trustees. However, he had to agree that the Change Report No.1292 of 2018 is only for change in name.

I refrain myself from commenting upon the scheme, its contents and impact of the change for the reason that the issue before me is only in respect of Change in name.

Hence, going litera legis Section 50-A of the Act of 1950 I struck down Petitioner’s objection that instead of Section 50-A, recourse by the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 to Section 22 of the Act of 1950 was erroneous.

Here, the 2^nd issue stands answered.

The 3^rd and 4^th moot issues could be discussed together. While it is foremost contention of the Petitioner that Public notice in newspaper was mandatory to exercise power u/s 22 of the Act of 1950, the other side submits that public notice under Rule 7-A of the 1951 Rules is contemplated only if there is change in property or inquiry about existence of a trust.

Let us now see what Rule 7-A (1) of the Rules of 1951 says.

The further sub-rules provide the procedure.

It is evident that the mandate of public notice is made for the inquiries are undertaken u/s 19, 22, 22-A, 28 or 29 of the Act of 1950 only where the inquiry is in respect of existence of a trust or about ownership of trust over a property. The legislature has specifically mentioned the purpose of the inquiries under the given provisions, to which public notice is necessary. Out of those section, some like Section 22 contain inquiries for such purposes which are in addition to existence of trust or about ownership of trust over a property. The purpose ‘change in the record’ is excluded in the section. Had the intention of legislature been for mandating public notice to all inquiries under the given Sections, there would not have been specific mention of the purposes of inquiries. Hence, it can not be accepted that a public notice is required in inquiry u/s 22 of the Act of 1950 for the purpose of effective change in the name of the Trust u/s 22 r/w Section 17, Rule 5 r/w Schedule-I.

Now the last objection remains about no personal notice to the Petitioner during the inquiry for change in the trust name. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has observed that the Petitioner fails to point out as to how he was a necessary party for the inquiry calling upon the authority to give him personal notice. There are specific observations by the revision authority as regards to the personal hearing and the procedural compliance. U/s 70-A of the Act of 1950, Joint Charity Commissioner is the competent authority and has overall supervisory powers to examine correctness of the record and the orders passed by the subordinate authorities. In the case in hand learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded his satisfaction as to the correctness of the procedure and the legality of the order approving the Change Report No.1292 of 2018.

I have cautiously gone through a judgment and order passed by High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal no.5008 of 2018, relied upon by learned advocate for the Petitioner. Facts are quite different from the case in hand. It is held that Section 22-A could not have been invoked for change in the trust name. In the case in hand too, Section 22-A is not invoked. In the cited case, order passed by the learned District Judge was held to be beyond the jurisdiction u/s 72(1) and (2) of the Trust Act. Apparently, this order is of no avail to the Petitioner. Hence I respectfully decline to apply the said ratio to the case in hand.

I don’t find any fatal defect in the order on revision application and the findings recorded by the authority. Rather, each material point to examine correctness of the order under challenge, the procedure and every aspect of the matter has been discussed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. That way, I do not find any reason to cause interference into the impugned order.

Thus, the issues nos. (iii) and (iv) are also answered accordingly.

Conclusion: For the reasons recorded, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in turning down the revision application u/s 70-A of the Act of 1950, nor there is any flaw in approving the change report recording change of trust name. Hence the Writ Petition fails, and accordingly I pass following order :

Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Rule stands discharged.