Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned Kali Math Upla, a public trust registered in 1988 under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioners were managing trustees, while respondent no.1 was a former trustee who had voluntarily resigned from trusteeship. In 2013, the petitioners filed Inquiry Application No.69 of 2013 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 50A(1) seeking approval of a new scheme in substitution of the earlier one. By order dated 27.01.2014, the Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the application and approved the proposed scheme. Nearly nine years later, respondent no.1 filed Revision Petition No.26 of 2023 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. By judgment and order dated 26.07.2024, the Joint Charity Commissioner allowed the revision, set aside the 2014 order, and disapproved the subsequent scheme. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging the revisional order. The core legal issues included whether respondent no.1, a former trustee who had resigned, qualified as a 'person having interest' under Section 2(10); whether the revision under Section 70A was maintainable against an order passed under Section 50A before the 2017 amendment; whether the revision was barred by limitation; and whether the Joint Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The petitioners contended that respondent no.1 had no locus standi because he ceased to be a trustee and faced criminal prosecutions for acts against the trust. They argued that the 2014 order was passed under pre-2017 provisions and hence revision under Section 70A was not available. They also raised limitation and asserted that setting aside a nine-year-old scheme was contrary to the Act's spirit. Respondent no.1 countered that resignation did not divest him of interest in the trust, criminal prosecutions were irrelevant, Section 70A covered orders under Section 50A and contained no limitation period, and the Joint Charity Commissioner could exercise suo motu powers. He further alleged that the original 2013 proceedings were not bona fide and involved fabrication of records. The court noted the multiple rounds of litigation and restricted its findings to the correctness of the revisional order. It began examining the maintainability of revision and jurisdiction, reproduced the pre-2017 Section 72 which provided an appeal to the court against decisions under Section 50A within sixty days. The available text stops at this point, and no final conclusion or direction is visible.
Headnote
A) Public Trust - Jurisdiction of Revision - Section 70A, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Revision against order passed under Section 50A before 2017 amendment - Petitioners argued that the 2014 order was passed under pre-2017 provisions and revision was not maintainable, while respondent claimed Section 70A covered orders under Section 50A and the Joint Charity Commissioner had suo motu power. The court examined the legislative changes brought by Maharashtra Act 55 of 2017 and reproduced the pre-amendment Section 72. (Paras 4.3-4.4, 5.3-5.5, 6.1)
B) Public Trust - Locus Standi - Definition of 'Person Having Interest' under Section 2(10), Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Whether a former trustee who voluntarily resigned can maintain revision - Petitioners contended that respondent no.1 ceased to be a person having interest after resignation and faced criminal prosecutions detrimental to the trust; respondent countered that resignation does not mean losing interest and criminal cases are irrelevant. The court noted these arguments but no final determination appears in the available text. (Paras 4.1-4.2, 5.1-5.2)
C) Public Trust - Limitation - Limitation for Revision under Section 70A, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Whether delay of nine years barred revision - Petitioners alleged the revision was filed after nine years and was time-barred; respondent relied on absence of limitation period in Section 70A. The court noted the contention but no final ruling is present in the excerpt. (Paras 4.4-4.5, 5.7)
D) Public Trust - Scheme Alteration - Section 50A, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Validity of approved scheme set aside after nine years - Petitioners argued that setting aside a long-standing approved scheme was against the spirit of the Act and the merits were not appreciated; respondent alleged the original 2013 proceedings were not bona fide and involved fabrication of records. The court noted these allegations while restricting its review to the impugned revisional order. (Paras 4.5, 5.6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent no.1, a former trustee who resigned, was a 'person having interest' under Section 2(10) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 to maintain revision; whether the revision under Section 70A was maintainable before the Joint Charity Commissioner against an order passed under Section 50A before the 2017 amendment; whether the revision was barred by limitation; whether the Joint Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to set aside the 2014 order
Law Points
- A former trustee who voluntarily resigned may still be a 'person having interest' under Section 2(10) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- pendency of criminal prosecutions does not automatically deprive a person of locus standi
- Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
- 1950 does not prescribe a limitation period for revision
- the 2017 amendment to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
- 1950 eliminated Section 72 but the Joint Charity Commissioner may exercise jurisdiction over orders passed before the amendment
- revision under Section 70A is maintainable against an order under Section 50A
- the Joint Charity Commissioner can exercise suo motu powers under Section 70A read with Section 70(1)
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 142
Writ Petition No. 11821 of 2024
Mr. Rahul Joshi, Mr. Raviraj Wakale, Ms. Madhaveshwari Mhase, Mr. Pravin V. Kavde, Mr. S. N. Kendre
Shivaji S/o Rangnath Sonwane, Balbhim Sambhaji Ghavle, Mrs. Suchita Shivaji Sonwane, Totala Guruprasad Jagdish, Dhananjay Narayan Nagre, Mrs. Chitra Santosh Birajdar, Kailas Babanrao Sonwane
Rajpalsingh Bhoj (Raju Maharaj), The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the revisional order of the Joint Charity Commissioner which set aside the Assistant Charity Commissioner's approval of a trust scheme.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the judgment and order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in Revision Petition No.26 of 2023 and restoration of the Assistant Charity Commissioner's order dated 27.01.2014 approving the scheme.
Filing Reason
The Joint Charity Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the previously approved scheme, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed Inquiry Application No.69 of 2013 on 27.01.2014 approving the proposed scheme; Joint Charity Commissioner in Revision Petition No.26 of 2023 set aside that order on 26.07.2024 and disapproved the scheme.
Issues
Whether respondent no.1, a former trustee who resigned, was a 'person having interest' under Section 2(10) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 to maintain revision.
Whether the revision under Section 70A was maintainable before the Joint Charity Commissioner against an order passed under Section 50A before the 2017 amendment.
Whether the revision was barred by limitation.
Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to set aside the 2014 order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that respondent no.1 had no locus standi because he voluntarily resigned from trusteeship and faced criminal prosecutions for illegal activities against the trust.
Petitioners argued that the 2014 order was passed under pre-2017 provisions, and therefore revision under Section 70A was not maintainable.
Petitioners argued the revision was barred by limitation and that setting aside a nine-year-old approved scheme was against the spirit of the Act.
Respondent no.1 argued that resignation did not divest him of interest in the trust and criminal prosecutions were irrelevant to locus standi.
Respondent no.1 argued that Section 70A covered orders under Section 50A and contained no limitation period, and the Joint Charity Commissioner had suo motu powers.
Respondent no.1 alleged that the original 2013 proceedings were not bona fide and involved fabrication of records.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner challenges legality and validity of the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Revision Petition No.26 of 2023.
Kali Math Upla, Tk. Kannad, District Aurangabad is a Public Trust registered in the office of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad vide Registration Certificate dated 06.06.1988.
The Petitioners submitted an applicaiton within the meaning of Section 50(a) (1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 for framing in a new scheme in substitution of the earlier one.
Vide Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2014, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner Aurangabad pleased to allow the application and approved the Scheme proposed by the Petitioners.
As against the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2014 referred above, Respondent no.1 filed a Revision Petition No.26 of 2023 before the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
After hearing the parties, learned Joint Charity Commissioner pleased the allow the Revision Petition vide Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2024, and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the learned the then Assistant Charity Commissioner Aurangabad in Application No.69 of 2013, and disapproved the subsequent scheme.
Admittedly, long back Respondent no.1 has voluntarily resigned from the trusteeship. Hence he can not be termed as a ‘person having interest’ within the meaning of Section 2(10) of the M.P.T. Act 1950.
The Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2014 in Inquiry Application No.69 of 2013 was passed under the pre-2017 amendment provisions of the Act. As such, learned Joint Charity Commissioner exercised jurisdiction not vested into his authority thereby entertaining revision u/s 70A of the M.P.T. Act 1950.
She would rely upon Section 70A of the Act, and submit that there is no rider of limitation.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Charity Commissioner under section 40, 41, 41C and 43 (2)(a) and(c), 50A, 70 or 70A or on the questions whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust or whether any property is the property of such trust may, within sixty days from the date of the decision, apply to the court to set aside the said decision.
Procedural History
Kali Math Upla was registered as a public trust on 06.06.1988. In 2013, the petitioners filed Inquiry Application No.69 of 2013 under Section 50A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner seeking approval of a new scheme. By order dated 27.01.2014, the Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the application and approved the scheme. Respondent no.1 filed Revision Petition No.26 of 2023 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, challenging the 2014 order. By judgment and order dated 26.07.2024, the Joint Charity Commissioner allowed the revision, set aside the 2014 order, and disapproved the scheme. The petitioners then filed Writ Petition No.11821 of 2024 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950: Section 2(10), Section 41D, Section 50A(1), Section 70(1), Section 70A, Section 72
