Bombay High Court
ANNASAHEB MAHADA MAHARNAWAR AND ANRversusTHE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The order of the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 24 June 2025 is quashed and set aside, and the application under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act must be decided afresh with an opportunity of hearing to all parties.
Summary
The appellants challenged a judgment dated 24 June 2025 of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, who had appointed them as temporary trustees of Shri Nageshwar Devasthan Trust under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Commissioner relied on an inspection report stating that three of the five original trustees had died and the remaining two were infirm, and concluded that no active trustees existed. The appellants argued that the report also indicated pending Change Reports (Nos. 1519 of 2018 and 646 of 2023) concerning the election of trustees, which the Commissioner ignored, thereby denying due process and a hearing to the elected trustees. The Court found that the Commissioner erred in finding no active trustees and in failing to give notice and hearing to all interested parties. Consequently, the Court quashed the Commissioner’s order and directed that the application be reheard with an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the persons named in the pending change reports.
Issues considered
- Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner was correct in concluding that no active trustees existed despite pending Change Reports.
- Whether the appointment of the appellants as temporary trustees complied with the requirements of due process, including notice and hearing, under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
- Whether the Commissioner erred in ignoring the pending Change Reports and the objections raised by certain respondents.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 — s. 47, 50-A
Subjects
- public trust
- trustees appointment
- Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
- due process
- notice and hearing
- quash order
- change report
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43453
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2026
1. Annasaheb Mahada Maharnawar,
2. Rama Bansi Shinde.
VERSUS
1. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune.
2. Shri Pandharinath Ramchandra Gaikwad,
3. Baban Yashwant Maharnawar (Deleted),
4. Devidas Tulshiram Shinde,
5. Dadabhau Parbati Raikar,
6. Manohar Eknath Shahane,
7. Sambhaji Nanabhau Bedre,
8. Raosaheb Dagadu maharnawar,
9. Raosaheb Baburao Shinde.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. More Abhijit S.
AGP for Respondents-State: Ms. R. R. Tandale
Advocate for Respondents No.2, 4 to 9 : Mr. P. P. More and Mr. Kedar A.
Pathade
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12107 OF 2025
IN FA/858/2026
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Dated : September 23, 2026
ORAL ORDER :
1. The present appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and order
dated 24/06/2025 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner,
Pune Region, Pune, in an application filed under Section 47 of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the
MPT Act” for brevity), which was registered as Appeal No.21 of 2018.
Page 1 of 7
907 CA 12107-2025
2. Initially, the said application was filed by the present
respondent Nos.1 to 3. Subsequently, respondent Nos.4 to 9 were
joined as applicants.
3. The proceedings were initiated in relation to a religious public
trust namely, Shri Nageshwar Devasthan, bearing PTR Registration
No.A-727 (Ahmednagar).
4. The contention of the present respondents, who were the
original applicants, is that there were five founder trustees of the
said Trust, out of whom three had expired and the remaining two
trustees, who were arraigned as non-applicants, were very old and
infirm and, as such, could not take care of the affairs of the Trust.
The respondents, therefore, prayed that they be appointed as
trustees for a short period of time and that they be permitted to file
a scheme as contemplated under Section 50-A of the Maharashtra
Public Trusts Act.
5. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has allowed the said
application. Perusal of the judgment and order would demonstrate
that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner had directed the
Inspector of Public Trusts to conduct an inquiry into the matter and
furnish a report. The Inspector accordingly submitted his report
Page 2 of 7
907 CA 12107-2025
dated 28/12/2020.
6. In his report, the Inspector has stated that audit reports of the
Trust were not filed with the office after 31/03/2011. He has also
stated that Change Report No.1519 of 2018 with respect to election
of trustees was pending before the learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner.
7. The report also states that, despite repeated notices issued to
the present respondents, who were the original applicants, they did
not provide the relevant documents as called for by the Inspector for
the purpose of conducting the inquiry.
8. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded that
since three out of the five trustees had expired and the remaining
two trustees were not in a position to manage the affairs of the Trust
due to their old age, it had become necessary to appoint the
applicants as trustees to manage the affairs of the Trust. The learned
Joint Charity Commissioner has also recorded that the original
applicants were residents of the locality in which the temple is
situated and were managing the affairs of the Trust responsibly.
9. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that although the
Inspector has, in his report, categorically stated that Change Report
Page 3 of 7
907 CA 12107-2025
No.1519 of 2018 was pending with respect to election of trustees,
the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded that there were
no legal or active trustees remaining to look after the affairs of the
Trust as per the inspection report.
10. The learned Advocate contends that the said observation is
absolutely contrary to the contents of the inspection report. He
further submits that another Change Report bearing No.646 of 2023
has also been filed by the appellants, in which the present
respondent Nos.2, 7 and 9 have lodged their objections. The learned
Advocate, therefore, submits that respondent Nos.2, 7 and 9 were
aware about the pending change reports and yet the said fact was
not brought to the notice of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner.
11. It is further contended that directions to file a scheme
application have also been issued without noticing the fact that such
an application had already been filed by the appellants, being
Application No.48/50A/2023.
12. The learned Advocate contends that the present appellants are
looking after the affairs of the Trust properly and, as such, the
proceedings ought not to have been decided without notice and
opportunity of hearing to them.
Page 4 of 7
907 CA 12107-2025
13. Learned Advocate for the respondents supports the judgment
and order impugned in the appeal. His contention is that the
appointment of the respondents as trustees is only by way of a
stopgap arrangement and, once the scheme is framed, the regular
body of trustees will assume charge of the affairs of the Trust.
14. He contends that the allegations with respect to suppression of
facts are irrelevant, because the application under Section 47 of the
MPT Act was filed on 27/06/2018 and Change Report No.1519 of
2018 was filed subsequently on 18/09/2018.
15. The foundation of the impugned order is that there was no
active trustee to manage the affairs of the Trust. It is also recorded
that there were no pending change reports with respect to the
trustees of the Trust. The impugned order is predominantly passed
on this ground.
16. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that respondent Nos.2, 7
and 9 were aware about the pending Change Report No.646 of 2023
and yet this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner.
17. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has also not adverted
to Clause 5 of the report furnished by the Inspector, which merely
Page 5 of 7
907 CA 12107-2025
states that Change Report No.1519 of 2018 was pending before the
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner.
18. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
19. It would be expedient to direct the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner to decide the application filed under Section 47 of the
MPT Act afresh by affording an opportunity of hearing to the present
appellants and the persons whose names are included as elected
trustees in Change Report Nos.1519 of 2018 and 646 of 2023.
20. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) The judgment and order dated 24/06/2025 passed
by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region,
Pune, in Appeal No.21 of 2018 in relation to Shri
Nageshwar Devasthan, PTR No.A-727 (Ahmednagar) is
quashed and set aside.
(ii) The learned Joint Charity Commissioner shall
decide the application afresh by affording an opportunity
of hearing to the present appellants and all persons
whose names are included as elected trustees in Change
Report Nos.1519 of 2018 and 646 of 2023.
Page 6 of 7
907 CA 12107-2025
(iii) The present appellants shall communicate the
present order to the other persons whose names are
included as elected trustees in the aforesaid change
reports and ensure that they remain present before the
learned Joint Charity Commissioner, without formal
notices being issued.
(iv) The parties to appear before the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner on 12/10/2026. Separate notices
for appearance shall not be issued.
(v) The learned Joint Charity Commissioner is
requested to decide the application as expeditiously as
possible and preferably before 31st December 2026.
Pending application stands disposed of.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
vj gawade/-.
Page 7 of 7
Checking your session…