Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from writ petitions challenging an order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati, which allowed a delay condonation application in an appeal under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioners were the secretary and a trustee of Shri Ganeshdas Rathi Chatralaya, Amravati, while respondent No.2 was the objector who had filed the appeal against acceptance of change reports. The trust had filed a change report No.757 of 1998, which was objected to by respondent No.2's father as nominee of a member in the Sanrakshak category. After the father's death, respondent No.2 was substituted as objector. The change report was accepted on 19.01.2009, and respondent No.2 preferred an appeal. Subsequently, several change reports concerning later elections (Inquiry Nos.602 of 2001, 524 of 2004, 435 of 2007, 577 of 2010, and 995 of 2013) were filed and accepted by judgment dated 28.04.2016. Respondent No.2 filed objection in two of those change reports and then filed an appeal under Section 70 along with an application for condonation of delay, claiming lack of knowledge of the acceptances until new elections were held. The petitioners opposed the condonation application, raising a preliminary objection that all trustees were not made parties to the appeal and the condonation application, rendering them not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Joint Charity Commissioner rejected this objection, holding that in proceedings under Section 22 or Section 70, co-trustees are not necessary parties because they are represented by the reporting trustees. The Commissioner then allowed the condonation of delay by order dated 15.01.2018. The petitioners challenged that order before the High Court. The core legal issue was whether all trustees are necessary parties to an appeal under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioners argued that Section 22 proceedings are judicial in nature and require compliance with natural justice, meaning all affected trustees must be heard. They relied on judgments of coordinate benches. The State supported the Commissioner's order. The High Court examined Sections 22 and 70 of the Act and noted that Section 70(3) does not contemplate any requirement of giving an opportunity of being heard to the other side, except the appellant or any person appearing on his behalf. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in SBI v. Rajesh Agrawal, which stated that natural justice principles are substantive obligations but their application depends on the facts, express language, and basic scheme of the statute. Since the statutory scheme did not require hearing all trustees, non-joinder of all trustees did not vitiate the appeal or the condonation application. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the Joint Charity Commissioner's order allowing condonation of delay and rejecting the preliminary objection. The decision established that co-trustees are not necessary parties in an appeal under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and that the statutory provision supersedes general natural justice requirements in this context.
Headnote
A) Trusts and Charities - Appeal Under Section 70 - Necessary Parties - Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, Sections 22 and 70 - The dispute concerned whether all trustees must be made parties to an appeal under Section 70 challenging acceptance of a change report under Section 22. The Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the preliminary objection and held that co-trustees are not necessary parties in such proceedings as they are represented by reported trustees. The High Court agreed that Section 70(3) does not contemplate any requirement of giving opportunity of being heard to the other side, except the appellant, and therefore non-joinder of all trustees did not render the appeal or condonation application not maintainable. Held that the order allowing condonation of delay was valid (Paras 7-8, 13, 16-17). B) Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Statutory Scheme - Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, Section 70 - The petitioner argued that proceedings under Section 22 are judicial in character requiring compliance with natural justice, including hearing all affected trustees. The court referred to the Supreme Court in SBI v. Rajesh Agrawal highlighting that natural justice principles are substantive obligations but application depends on facts, express language and basic scheme of statute. Since Section 70(3) expressly provides for hearing only the appellant or any person appearing on his behalf, the statutory scheme did not mandate impleading all trustees. Held that the petitioner's objection to maintainability on non-joinder was rightly rejected (Paras 9-11, 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether all trustees are necessary parties to an appeal filed under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 challenging acceptance of a change report under Section 22, and whether the appeal and application for condonation of delay are maintainable without impleading all trustees.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Joint Charity Commissioner's order dated 15.01.2018, which had allowed the condonation of delay and rejected the preliminary objection that all trustees were necessary parties to the appeal under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Law Points
- Co-trustees are not necessary parties in appeal under Section 70 of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- Section 70(3) does not require hearing any person other than the appellant
- Non-joinder of all trustees does not render appeal or condonation application not maintainable
- Principles of natural justice must yield to express statutory scheme
- Audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua are substantive but subject to statutory language
