High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad examines maintainability of writ petitions against provisional acceptance of Change Report under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. Revisional remedy under Section 70A of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 is central to the question of alternate efficacious remedy.

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging provisional acceptance of a Change Report under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and subsequent refusal to recall or stay that order.

Petitioners sought setting aside or staying of the provisional approval order dated 11.01.2021 and the rejection of applications Exh-17 and Exh-17A dated 28.01.2021.

Allegation that the provisional acceptance of Change Report No. 8/2021 was obtained by suppressing material facts; also challenge to jurisdictional maintainability in light of alternate remedy.

Assistant Charity Commissioner provisionally accepted Change Report No. 8/2021 on 11.01.2021; rejected recall/stay applications Exh-17 and Exh-17A on 28.01.2021; earlier Change Reports were rejected, appeals dismissed, and related writ petitions remained pending.

Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable when a revision under Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 is available as an alternate efficacious remedy? Whether an order provisionally accepting a Change Report under the first proviso to Section 22(2) of the Act is appealable under Section 70 or revisable under Section 70A of the Act?

Petitioners argued that the impugned order is not a finding and no appeal under Section 70 of the Act would lie; the High Court has ample writ powers to correct illegality, especially when fundamental rights are violated; relied on Mukesh Nashikrao Tirpude and Kashyap Odhavji Thakkar decisions. Respondents argued that the impugned order is an order passed in a substantive proceeding under Section 22 of the Act and although it does not record a finding so that an appeal under Section 70 would lie, a revision under Section 70A would certainly be an efficacious remedy available to the petitioners; relied on Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited decision.

the matters revolve around the only question as to whether a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable in view of the remedy of a revision under Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 the impugned order is not a finding and no appeal under Section 70 of the Act would lie. since the impugned order is an order passed in a substantive proceeding under Section 22 of the Act in the form of a Chang Report enquiry, though it does not record a finding so that an appeal under Section 70 would lie, a revision under Section 70A of the Act would certainly be an efficacious remedy available to the petitioners.

Change Report No. 8/2021 filed on 11.01.2021 along with application Exh-2 under first proviso to Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950; Assistant Charity Commissioner passed provisional acceptance order on the same day. Petitioners filed applications Exh-17 and Exh-17A to recall or stay the order, which were rejected on 28.01.2021. Petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos. 3788/2021 and 10498/2021 before the High Court. The High Court issued Rule, made it returnable forthwith, and heard the matters finally at the stage of admission on 26.10.2021; judgment was reserved and pronounced on 18.11.2021.

• Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950: Section 17, Section 22, Section 22(1), first proviso to Section 22(2), Section 22(3), Section 70, Section 70A
• Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227