Pramod Punjabrao Deshmukh & Ors. vs The Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.

. Heard Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. A. M. Tirukh, learned Counsel for the Respondents and Ms. D. V. Sapkal, learned AGP for the Respondent/State.

Since the issue involved in both the Appeals is similar, both the Appeals are decided by common Judgment and the facts of First Appeal No. 1397/2025 are taken into consideration for the sake of brevity.

By way of present Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and Order dated 17/10/2025 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati in Application Nos. 23/2025 and 24/2025, whereby the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, by exercising the powers under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short, ‘the Act of 1950’), appointed the Trustees on Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Charangaon, Tahsil Patur, District Akola (for short, ‘the Trust’).

In the present Appeal, challenge made by the present Appellants to the impugned Judgment is mainly on the ground that the learned Charity Commissioner, while exercising powers under Section 47 of the Act of 1950, has exceeded his powers and without considering the factors, which are laid down, particularly under clauses – (2) and (3) of Section 47 of the Act, appointed the Trustees. Hence, the Appellants sought indulgence of this Court in the present matter.

In order to understand the grievance raised by the Appellants before this Court, it would be necessary to summarise the facts of the present Appeal as under :

Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Charangaon, Tahsil Patur, District Akola is a public registered Trust bearing registration No. F-1002/Akola. One of the Trustee namely, Mr. Nanarao Vitthalrao Deshmukh has challenged the order dated 28/2/2024 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola in Enquiry Case No. 43/2023, whereby directed the Applicant therein to enroll new members and hold elections of the Executive Committee of the Trust. The said powers were exercised by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 41-A of the Act of 1950, which according to the Petitioner therein are without jurisdiction, and hence, he preferred Writ Petition No. 5898/2024 before this Court.

This Court, by considering the scope of Section 41-A of the Act of 1950, in the light of law laid down by this Court, hold that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has no authority to issue such directions to enroll the members and to hold an election, particularly when, there are already existing three trustees of the Trust. This Court further directed the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein to apply to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati jointly or individually under Section 47 of the Act of 1950 for further directions. The Joint Charity Commissioner was further directed that if such applications are filed, the same shall be decided within a period of two months, and accordingly, the said Writ Petition was disposed of.

In the light of directions issued by this Court, Nanarao Vithalrao Deshmukh and others filed Application No. 23/2025 under Section 47 of the Act of 1950 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati. So also Ashok Devidas Deshmukh and Punjabrao Sheshrao Deshmukh along with other six Applicants have filed Application No. 24/2025 under Section 47 of the Act of 1950 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati.

In the said proceeding, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, by the impugned Judgment dated 17/10/2025 has appointed eight trustees by continuing earlier two trustees. As such, following eleven trustees were appointed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.

In the proceedings which are conducted by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for Appellants that the Judgment delivered under Section 47 of the Act of 1950 is a decree of District Court, and therefore, the procedure which is laid down under Section 47 read with Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Rules is required to be followed in such proceeding. He has fairly stated that though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable in the matter, but as far as possible, the Authority, who is exercising the powers under Section 47 of the Act is required to follow the procedure and application of judicial mind while appointing trustees of the Trust should be reflected while passing the order of appointment of trustees. He has specifically stated that though the Joint Charity Commissioner can adopt his own procedure, which he may deem fit, but the same should be in consonance with the principles of natural justice and his decision should be on logical understanding.

The learned Counsel for Appellants further submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 47 has specifically laid down the principles, which requires consideration by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, while appointing new trustees in the Trust. According to the Appellants, the Joint Charity Commissioner cannot laid down his own principles while appointing new trustees by exercising powers under Section 47 of the Act of 1950. However, in the present case, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has violated sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47, so also the law laid down by this Court in the case of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar and others V/s Jayawant @ Babasaheb s/o Vishwanath Uttarwar and others, 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 253.

The learned Counsel for Appellants has stated that this Court, in the case of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar (supra), has held that the enquiry under Section 47 of the Act of 1950 is not merely a formal enquiry. The enquiry contemplated under this provision is something short of trial, therefore, wherever an enquiry as required by law is to be held, the law expects the Authority to do some kind of investigation and consideration of material before it. An enquiry can never be so informal infact must be formal. So also laid down certain norms, which are required to be followed in enquiry under Section 47 of the Act of 1950.

In view of this legal position, the learned Counsel has pointed out how the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has committed an illegality while deciding the application under Section 47 of the Act of 1950.

It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for Appellants that as per the Judgment of this Court in the case of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar (supra) it is made mandatory that public notice must be issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner informing the public at large about the vacancy in the Trust. If such public notice is not given, then the persons, who are interested for applying as a trustee would be deprived from getting appointment as a trustee. Hence, public notice is mandatory in every proceeding. The Appellants, therefore, raised objection that public notice was not given in a village Charangaon by way of drum beating, by arranging meeting of the villagers or without identifying interested persons from the village to get them appointed as trustees. In respect of this objection, the Applicants in Application No. 24/2025 have placed on record the receipt of payment to one Ramesh Jairam Kasod, who had allegedly made drum beating in the village Charangaon. The documents of the meeting to that effect and consent letter was also filed by the Applicants in Application No. 24/2025 before the Joint Charity Commissioner.

Per contra, the Applicants in Application No. 23/2025 submitted that no such drum beating notice was ever issued in the matter. All these documents of meeting only created a farce in the matter. In support of their submission, they have filed affidavit of a person namely, Ramesh Kasod before the Joint Charity Commissioner. However, this aspect was not seriously dealt with by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and merely by holding that such procedure is not mandatory under the provisions of law, but only desirable activity, for smooth process of collecting willing and interested persons to be trustees, has rejected the objection raised by the Appellants.

The Appellants have raised specific objection before the Joint Charity Commissioner that as per the roznama maintained by the Joint Charity Commissioner, particularly in Application No. 23/2025, it is seen that on 10/10/2025 the Respondents filed an application for permission to file several documents on record along with pendrive (Exhibit-151) in a closed envelop which contains certain video clips of certain Applicants in Application No. 24/2025. After that, matter was closed for Judgment on 10/10/2025 and next date was given on 13/10/2025. The Appellants have pointed out that on 13/10/2025 the Respondents have not filed on record the amended/corrected copy which was duly signed and sworn before the Competent Authority. So also the amendment is not carried out within prescribed period, and therefore, such application is not tenable. However, after the matter was closed for Judgment, the Joint Charity Commissioner has passed the order below Exhibit-1 on 13/10/2025 and directed the Appellants to file amended/corrected copy of Exhibit-1.

It is further pointed out that on 14/10/2025 i.e. after closing the Application No.24/2025 for Judgment, the Applicants in Application No. 23/2025 filed application (Exhibit-171) for playing the video clips contained in the pen drive, which was duly opposed by filing necessary reply. But without considering the reply, the Joint Charity Commissioner has permitted them to play video clips on 17/10/2025. It is specifically alleged that after going through the said video clips, on the very same day, final Judgment was pronounced in the matter. In support of this submission, Appellants have relied upon the copy of roznama, which is placed on record.

The Appellants have pointed out from the impugned Judgment that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has laid down the following criteria for appointment of trustees, which reads as under :

According to the Appellants, Section 47(3) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act has specifically laid down the principles that while appointing the trustee under sub-section (2), the Charity Commissioner shall have regard—

Though the Joint Charity Commisioner has made farce that on the basis of these guidelines laid down under Section 47(3), he has carved out the abovesaid principles, but same is contrary to his own finding recorded in the impugned Judgment.

The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, though has recorded that if more than one person from the same family appointed as a trustee, it will give specific signal and concentrated power of administration of the School in one family, and therefore, he has preferred to take such care as far as possible to avoid for appointing such trustees from the same family, but he has appointed the trustees, who are relatives to each other. Hence, he submitted that learned Joint Charity Commissioner has created a farce to show that he has, by following the principles laid down under Section 47(3) of the Act, appointed the trustees.

The Appellants further pointed out that if this Court perused the finding in respect of each person who has been appointed as a trustee, it can be seen that the Joint Charity Commissioner has only appointed those persons, who are economically sound and whose forefathers are earlier trustees, or who are highly educated persons. The reasons recorded for their appointment as trustees are contrary to sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act.

In view of this, Appellants states that the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, being contrary to the settled principles of law, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the persons appointed being not an interested persons, but only economically sound persons, are only appointed in the Trust. Hence, indulgence of this Court is necessary in the present matter. According to him, normal persons who are resident of same village and having affinity with the Trust are deliberately avoided to be appointed as a trustee of the Trust.

The learned Counsel for Respondents, however, defended the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. He has pointed out that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, has taken into consideration the wishes of the author of the Trust, wishes of the persons empowered to appoint new trustees and further seen that appointment shall not promote or impede the execution of the Trust and interest of the public who have interest in the Trust are legally appointed in the present matter.

In respect of the procedure adopted by the Joint Charity Commissioner, he stated that procedure cannot be a reason to set aside the entire procedure which is adopted by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the matter. The learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that though under sub-section (5) of Section 47, the Judgment being a decree of a District Court, strict procedure as laid down under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be made applicable. He also pointed out Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Rules, which states that as far as possible the procedure under the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887, as contemplated under Order 50 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is applicable in the matter. He has stated that in the proceeding conducted under Section 47 of the Act of 1950, there is no requirement of settlement of issues and recording the examination of the parties, and therefore, considering this fact, the Joint Charity Commissioner is empowered to adopt the procedure which he may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The learned Counsel for Respondents further submitted that admittedly the Trust runs the School. The Joint Charity Commissioner has specifically recorded the finding that the School is not in a proper position, as there is no one to manage and administer the School in a proper manner. Hence, according to him, the persons who are educated and financially sound, are only required to be appointed so that the School should be improved and the Management can run the School properly. Hence, according to him, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, by keeping in mind this aspect, appointed the trustees in the Trust. Hence, it is his submission that no interference of this Court is called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In support of the submission, the learned Counsel for Respondents has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the cases of— (i) Chandrakant Jaydevshankar Thakar & Ors. V/s Smt. Alka Sahani & Ors., 2021 NearLaw (Bombay HC Nagpur) Online 366; (ii) Ajit Shankarrao Deshmukh & Ors. V/s The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors. 2010(2) ALL MR 250; (iii) Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos (Dead) by L.Rs. V/s Abdulhabib Hasan Arab and Others, (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 343.

In the light of rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides, I have gone through the entire case papers, which are made available before this Court, provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act and the case laws, which are relied upon by both the parties.

At the outset, in my considered opinion, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar (supra) is holding field till date, whereby this Court has considered the requirement and consideration for appointment of new trustees for administration of the public Trust. This Court has laid down certain principles to appoint a fit person as a trustee to take care of the Trust. It is further held by this Court that while appointment of a trustee, proper enquiry is necessary. It is held that under Section 47(5) of the Act, the Judgment passed under Section 47 being a decree, which means the order determines finally the rights between two rival parties, therefore, an enquiry is required to be conducted and parties should be heard and then the right of those parties are required to be determined. In short, it is held that the enquiry which is contemplated is something short of a trial in a civil proceeding. While conducting such enquiry, norms of natural justice and the procedure to reach to the conclusion is required to be followed which should prima facie satisfied that the proper procedure has been followed in the matter which reaching to the conclusion in the said enquiry. It would be relevant to refer paragraph No.9 of the Judgment in the case of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar (supra) reads as under :

In the light of observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, I have perused the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in the matter.

In the present case, the Joint Charity Commissioner, in the impugned Judgment has firstly dealt with the preliminary objection raised by the parties before him. In all 4 to 5 objections were raised before him and more important objection raised before him is that no public notice was issued to the villagers at large so that they should participate in the proceeding for appointment of trustees of the Trust. The Applicants in Application No. 24/2025 have produced certain documents stating that the notice by drum beating was circulated in the village, meeting of the villagers was arranged and all the interested persons from the village applied for the post of trustee. This aspect was denied by the Applicants in Application No. 23/2025.

In support of this submission, Applicants have filed affidavit of the person namely, Shri Ramesh Jairam Kasod, who was alleged to have circulated the notice by drum beating. In his affidavit, he has categorically stated that no such drum beating was made at his instance. Once such affidavit came on record, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, in such peculiar facts and circumstances, ought to have been permitted to the parties to examine the veracity of this person before him so that the issue can be resolved. But surprisingly, he has taken a view that under Section 47 of the Act it is desirable activity to call all villagers by giving notice by all possible ways and same is not mandatory provision. Hence, by recording this finding, the objection raised by the Applicants in Application No. 23/2025 was rejected. As such, he has given no weightage to the public notice which is an important fact while selecting the interested person as a trustee of the Trust.

The other objection, which was raised before the Joint Charity Commissioner was that, on 10/10/2025 the Applicants in Application No. 23/2025 filed an application for permission to file several documents on record along with pen drive in a closed envelop alleging that same contains certain video clips of certain Applicants in Application No. 24/2025. The same was taken on record and on the same day the matter was closed for passing final Judgment on 13/10/2025.

In this respect, perusal of findings in the impugned Judgment are surprising. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded that one Shri Nanarao Deshmukh and Rajesh Deshmukh have filed pen drive before him and asked him to go through the same. However, he opened the pen drive on his laptop and heard with the help of speaker brought by them before him, as voice from those videos was not being properly heard on the instrument of the office of Joint Charity Commissioner. Therefore, the said pen drive was played by one Vyenkatesh Deshmukh from Application No. 23/2025 from the folder “Bhausaheb” and then from file of “Chetna High School” from the pen drive supplied on behalf of Applicants from Application No. 23/2025 and seen the video clips.

The Joint Charity Commissioner, in the impugned Judgment further recorded that he had gone through the video clips. He has given the opportunity to all the parties to explain the facts from the said two videos and to bring his knowledge all the material points from the said video clips. He has observed that an objection was raised before him after going through the said pen drive that Ashokrao Deshmukh and Punjabrao Deshmukh were trying to hand over the management of the Trust for consideration of Rs.1.85 Crores to one Pramod Bhaurao Rajguru and Anita Pramod Rajguru, who were running some other Institution at Washim. He further recorded that for that purpose, the said two trustees have added four other members as trustees and filed Change Report No. 383/2022. Hence, these two persons are not having honest intention to run the Trust and the School which is run by the Trust.

The learned Joint Charity Commissioner further recorded in the impugned Judgment that from one video he find out that one Rajesh Deshmukh from Application No. 23/2025 had inspected the School premises and building of Chetna School being run by Lokmanya Trust and some villagers had called journalists and gave interview to them. During that period he has mentioned that out of 11 trustees of the Trust, only three trustees are alive and there is a gossip in the village that out of those three trustees, two trustees tried to sell out the Trust for consideration of Rs.1.85 Crores. However, the said interview no where disclosed the name of trustees nor clarified with certainty that such transaction/deal which is found in the video clips. However, the said objection, according to him, was not sustainable, and therefore, he has rejected the said objection on the ground that no evidence is made available on record that those two persons have made an effort to handover the administration of Chetna School in the hands of other persons. So also it is not established that they have intention to handover the administration of the School to cause loss to the Trust. Hence, the video clips though recorded the conversation against the said persons, but it is not clear that they were found doing wrong against Lokmanya Trust and thereby rejected the objections.

In the present matter if once learned Joint Charity Commissioner has closed the matter on 10/10/2015 for Judgment, it is not clear when he has seen the video clips in presence of those persons. He has not mentioned the dates on which the Applicants in the Applications were called and in their presence he has seen the video clips. It is no where clear from the record that due notices were served on all the Applicants in both the Applications and they were called to verify the authenticity of the pen drive or to verify its contents. Therefore, this observation made by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner runs contrary to the record. Once the roznama shows that he has closed the case for Judgment on 10/10/2025, it is hard to believe as to how the Joint Charity Commissioner has played video clips and seen all the contents in presence of some of the Applicants in the matter.

It is further pertinent to note that it is well settled position of law that pen drive being an electronic instrument and the evidence therein being electronic evidence, certificate under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory requirement for production of electronic evidence. Oral evidence in place of such certificate is not sufficient. In this regard, the Appellants have rightly relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku V/s State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly observed in paragraph 20 as under :

Coming to the appointment made by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner as already recorded, he has culled out certain members for appointment of the trustees on the basis of guidelines which he has carved out in the matter clearly demonstrates the fact that he has pre-determined to appoint only those persons who are educated and expert in particular field and financially strong and having social connections to bring the grants-in-aid to the School or to provide finance for development of the School. These principles which are laid down by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, in my considered opinion, are contrary to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act of 1950.

The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, though recorded the finding that while appointing trustees he has taken care that more than one member from the family should not be appointed, but while making such appointment he has violated his own finding in the present matter. It would be relevant to record in brief about some appointed trustees as to how the criteria has been applied by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner while making their appointment as trustees.

In respect of appointment of Mrs. Bharti Rajesh Deshmukh, the Joint Charity Commissioner has appointed her by recording the finding that she is Law Graduate and practising as Advocate, and therefore, she is having knowledge of law. She has social touch of public field and therefore during her career as an Advocate, she would be helpful to the girl students of the Chetna School and she may have a parental role for them. According to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, she can read mind of the girl students and they may interact with her freely and she can solve their problems as compared to her husband Rajesh Deshmukh, and therefore, she was appointed as trustee. Here it is pertinent to note that appointment of the trustee is on the Trust. The School is run by the Trust and in the School, as per the provisions of MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder, the Management cannot interfere in the internal administration of the Trust. Hence, such observation made by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner clearly demonstrate the fact that he has considered only about School and not about Trust. The Trust is altogether different from the School and this factor is not considered in the matter.

In respect of appointment of one Shrikant Ganeshrao Deshmukh, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded the finding that he was well educated person and having experience of teaching in the School run by the Trust. He has recorded finding that earlier trustees namely, Ashokrao Deshmukh, Punjabrao Deshmukh and Nanarao Deshmukh were willing to take his father Ganeshrao Deshmukh as a trustee, but they could not take him as a trustee, and therefore, compared to other persons, he is a fit person to appoint as trustee. Here, though the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded the finding that interested person would not be appointed, this person has been appointed only because the other trustees were willing to take his father as a trustee, but as they failed to take his father as trustee, now his son shall be the proper person as trustee. This finding itself shows non-application of mind at the instance of learned Joint Charity Commissioner.

In respect of appointment of Gangadhar Shravan Ingale as a trustee, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded that he is qualified as B.A. B.Ped. and expert in physical education of the students. He being retired teacher, is useful for the welfare of the School. Here again, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has kept in mind the School and not the Trust. Therefore, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not considered the eligibility of this person in the light of sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act.

In respect of appointment of Sachin Pralhad Haramkar as a trustee, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded that he is expert in co-operative field and resident of village Ambashi, which according to him, is two kilometres away from village Charangaon and he has house at Charangaon. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded the finding that his grandfather Shivram Sonaji Haramkar was the President of Trust for a long period, and therefore, this person has love and affection with the Trust and the School which run by the Trust, and therefore, he is appointed as trustee. Here again, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, without considering the factors of eligibility of a person on its own merit, merely because his grandfather was President of the Trust, has appointed him as a trustee.

In respect of appointment of Govind Ganesh Jadhav, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded the finding that his annual income is Rs.9,00,000/- per annum, and therefore, he can help monetarily to the Institute, and therefore, appointed him as a trustee. Such criteria is foreign to the provisions of law, and therefore, this finding of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner is not justified in the present matter.

Likewise, the other persons who are appointed by the impugned order are basically on the basis of their financial status or on such material which is not having any foundation nor the same was in consonance with sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act. Hence, considering the observations which are recorded by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner while making appointment, is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

In the light of above observation, in my considered opinion, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has failed to follow the due procedure of law, which is contemplated under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47 of the Act of 1950. So also the law laid down by this Court in the case of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar (supra) is also not followed in the present matter.

Bare perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that learned Joint Charity Commissioner, only on the basis of financial eligibility of the persons has appointed them as trustees. From the findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner, it is no where established that they are having interest to run the Trust or they are interested to follow the custom and usage of the Trust. The wishes of the author of the Trust is not properly dealt with. Hence, for not following the procedure in the prescribed manner, the impugned order does not survive and interference of this Court is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the result, following order is passed.

Since both the Appeals are disposed of, pending Civil Application No. 4198/2025 in First Appeal No. 1397/2025 and Civil Application Nos. 2931/2026 and 2932/2026 in First Appeal No. 430/2026 do not survive. All the Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly.