Swami Vivekanand Bhuudeshiya Sevabhavi Vikas Sanstha & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

By consent of the parties, Writ Petition is heard for final disposal.

The petitioner no.1 is the Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (For brevity, “the Act”) constituted for the objects as are mentioned in its constitution. It is the contention of the petitioners that the trust runs school which requires huge financial resources for its smooth and effective functioning. When the trust found itself deficit of funds, its members unanimously resolved to raise financial aid by obtaining credit facility from financial institutions, banks, etc. It is further submitted that the petitioners/Trust raised a loan of Rs.2,47,00,000/- (Rupees two crore forty seven lakhs only) from a finance company, namely Axis Finance Limited.

Further contention of the petitioners/trust is that upon realizing that the trust had failed to obtain prior permission from learned Assistant Charity Commissioner before raising funds in view of Section 36A, the petitioners filed an application before the learned Charity Commissioner which came to be registered as CC/01/2021. The application was filed to convince learned Charity Commissioner that exceptional circumstances as contemplated under the amended provisions of Section 36 of the Act i.e. Section 36A(3A) had arisen.

Petitioners’ grievance is that despite having demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances, learned Charity Commissioner refused to grant ex post facto permission and rejected the application.

Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court.

Mr. Zaidi Ali Zeeshan M., learned Advocate for the petitioners would submit that there are no objections as to the bonafides of the petitioners/trust so far as it has raised huge loan. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners/trust runs school for the welfare of the students on moderate fees. The need for the financial aid was not for any purpose other than the welfare of the students and the schools. As the trust was in financial crisis, it was unanimously resolved to raise the funds by obtaining loan. Accordingly, the loan was obtained and against which sufficient security was also furnished by offering valuable immovable properties of the trust as security to the finance.

In view of this, Mr. Zaidi submits that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of ex post facto permission. He would submit that the objection raised by learned Charity Commissioner is that petitioners’ financer does not fall within the category of nationalized banks or scheduled banks contemplated under Section 36A(3A) of the Act. He would further submit that in view of the directions issued by this Court on the earlier occasions, he has now placed on record the list of public sector banks and private banks.

Mr. Zaidi, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the list contains names of Scheduled Commercial Banks, in which Axis Bank Limited is included under the category of private banks. As such, Axis Bank Limited is a scheduled commercial bank as per the notification dated 13.04.2020 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. He would further place on record a print out from the dashboard of official website of Axis Finance showing that the financer is a registered company and a subsidiary of Axis Bank. As such Mr. Zaidi would make an attempt to convince this Court that the objection raised by learned Charity Commissioner must not survive. He would submit that the status of the Axis Finance Limited is covered under Section 36A(3A) of the Act. With this, Mr. Zaidi, learned Advocate for the petitioners prays to allow the Writ Petition.

Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, learned AGP submits that Axis Finance is apparently a registered company and a subsidiary of Axis Bank Limited. Although Axis Bank Limited happens to be a private Bank falling within the Scheduled Commercial Banks as per the notification published by the Reserve Bank of India, it does not ipso facto mean that Axis Finance Limited is itself a private bank or a scheduled bank. With this, Mr. Sonpawale concludes his argument that there is no error on the part of learned Charity Commissioner in passing the impugned order nor in any circumstances Axis Finance Limited can be said to be covered by the provisions of Section 36A(3A) of the Act.

I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned AGP for respondent-State at length and have also perused the record. The list of Scheduled Commercial Banks published by Reserve Bank of India vide notification dated 13.04.2020 is taken on record and marked as ‘Annexure-X’ for the purpose of identification. It appears from the said list that Axis Bank Limited is included therein as a private bank. Section 36A (3A) of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:

Now going litera legis, it is necessary to ascertain whether Axis Finance Limited is a nationalized bank or a private bank falling within the category of scheduled commercial banks as contemplated under Section 36A(3A) of the Act. The list although includes name of Axis Bank Limited under the category of private banks it does not contain the name of Axis Finance Limited. Reliance placed by the petitioners on the print out from the dashboard of official website of Axis Finance Limited would be of no avail to the petitioners.

It is apparent that axis Finance Limited is a registered company and a subsidiary of Axis Bank. However, a subsidiary of a bank itself does not constitute a status as a nationalized bank or Scheduled Commercial Bank including private banks. In view of this, it has to be held that Axis Finance Limited is not covered by the provisions of Section 36A(3A) of the Act. In view of this, I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 passed by learned Charity Commissioner in proceeding No.CC/01/2021.

Resultantly, Writ Petition fails. Hence, the following order:

a. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

b. Civil application if any, stands disposed of.

c. Rule stands discharged.