Bombay High Court
SHRAMSAFALYA EDUCATION SOCIETY AMALNER, JALGAONversusCHANDRAKANT BHANUDAS BHADANE AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed; the orders of the Joint Charity Commissioner are upheld.
Summary
Shramsafalya Education Society, a charitable trust, challenged two orders of the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act: one allowing an amendment to the inquiry application after seven years, and another rejecting the trust’s request to recall an earlier order directing production of documents. The trust argued that the amendment was beyond the Commissioner’s power and that the production order was final because the trust had withdrawn a prior writ petition without reserving the right to re‑file. The Court held that the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition without liberty made the production order final and that the Commissioner lawfully exercised ancillary powers to permit amendment, which did not prejudice the trust. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Commissioner’s orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the order directing production of documents dated 07.12.2007 can be recalled after the petitioner withdrew the earlier writ petition without reserving a right to re‑file.
- Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner has authority to allow amendment to an application under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act after a delay of seven years.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the issuance of the orders.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 — s. 41-D
Subjects
- natural justice
- amendment
- public trust
- Section 41-D
- charitable trust mismanagement
- jurisdiction
- finality of orders
- production of documents
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37304
53 WP No.8698.2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8698 OF 2014
SHRAMSAFALYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMALNER, DIST-JALGAON
VERSUS
CHANDRAKANT BHANUDAS BHADANE AND OTHERS
***
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay G. Talhar
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. D. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Girish Rane
***
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1456 OF 2026
IN WP/4571/2008
SHRAMSAFALYA EDUCATION SOCIETY AMALNER, JALGAON
VERSUS
CHANDRAKANT BHANUDAS BHADANE AND ORS
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 19th August, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The petitioner has challenged the two separate orders
rendered by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik Division,
Nashik in Inquiry Case No. 22/2005. The order under challenge is
dated 03.01.2014, allowing the amendment application presented
by respondent no. 1 to 3 to incorporate additional paragraph
in the application under Section 41-D of the Bombay
Public TrustAct, 1950. As well as the order under challenge dated
53 WP No.8698.2014
-2-
09.01.2014, rejecting the application presented by the petitioner -
Trust below Exhibit 40, seeking to recall an earlier order dated
07.12.2007 rendered below Exhibit 25.
2. The respondent no. 1 was working as the Principal of
Ramai Sharirik Shikshan Shashtra Mahavidyalaya, a college run by
the petitioner Trust. Following a departmental inquiry initiated in
2004 thereafter, the services of respondent no. 1 were terminated
by the trust, which was endorsed by the College Tribunal in Appeal
No. NMU-06/2008 on 07.09.2010.
3. The respondent no. 1 along with respondents no. 2 and
3 presented Inquiry Application No. 22/2005 before the Assistant
Charity Commissioner under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public
Trust Act, 1950, seeking initiation of action of removal against the
trustees. The respondent no. 1 presented an application below
Exhibit 25 for production of documents, which was allowed by the
Authority allegedly without giving the petitioner a proper
opportunity to contest. Proceedings under Section 41-D of the Act
application was later dismissed by the Joint Charity Commissioner
on 12.06.2009, resulting the petitioner to withdraw a pending writ
petition against the order of production of 07.12.2007.
53 WP No.8698.2014
-3-
4. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 to 3 challenged the order
of dismissal dated 12.06.2009 before this Court in Writ Petition No.
7867/2011, which was disposed of on 28.11.2011, setting aside
the dismissal and relegating the parties to the Joint Charity
Commissioner to decide the application under Section 41-D afresh.
5. After the remand, the petitioner presented application
below Exhibit 40 to recall the order dated 07.12.2007 below Exh.
25, containing direction of production of documents which suffered
rejection, whereas the respondents presented Exhibit 42 seeking to
amend the main application, which came to be allowed. These two
orders are under challenge.
6. Mr. Talhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner Trust
submits that the orders under challenge are illegal since those are
rendered in derogation of the principles of natural justice. The
order directing the production of documents dated 07.12.2007 was
passed on the same day its copy was served on the petitioner's
advocate, depriving the petitioner - trust of an opportunity to offer
a reply or address arguments. The learned counsel for petitioner
further submits that the Joint Charity Commissioner erred in
53 WP No.8698.2014
-4-
observing that the order had become final merely because the
earlier writ petition was withdrawn unconditionally.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted
that there is no provision under Section 41-D of the Act
proceedings to permit amendments and allowing the changes after
a delay of seven years, as such, is impermissible. Therefore,
prayed to allow the writ petition.
8. Mr. Rane, the learned counsel respondent No. 1
supports the orders under challenge submitting that the order of
production of documents dated 07.12.2007 attained finality while
the petitioner chose to withdraw Writ Petition No. 4571/2008
without seeking any liberty from this Court to raise the challenge
again at a later stage. Since this Court remanded the case for a
fresh hearing on the merits, the petitioner cannot circumvent order
directing to produce relevant records which has attained finality.
9. The counsel further submits that the allowing the
amendment application below Exh. 42, does not alter the nature of
the case owing to the mismanagement of the charitable trust,
which is the basis for an inquiry under Section 41-D of the Act.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
53 WP No.8698.2014
-5-
10. The learned AGP supported the order under challenge
and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. After considering the submissions of litigating sides and
perusing the material on record, the order dated 07.12.2007
directing to produce documents could be reviewed or recalled vide
Exhibit 40 cannot be accepted, since the petitioner having raised
challenge to the same before this Court and chose to withdraw the
petition unconditionally. Once a writ petition challenging an
interlocutory order is withdrawn without reserving any liberty to
challenge it afresh, attains finality. As such, the Joint Charity
Commissioner rightly observed lacking the jurisdiction in review of
an order that had effectively become final.
12. Moreover, an inquiry under Section 41-D of the Bombay
Public Trust Act is an inquiry aimed at protecting the interest of
public trusts from mismanagement and the production of records is
a basic requirement to unearth the truth. It is a well-settled
principle of law that authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers
possess the ancillary power to allow amendments to ensure all
relevant facts are before the court.
53 WP No.8698.2014
-6-
13. In any case, the proposed change sought to be
incorporated do not change the nature of the application; merely
provides additional particulars of alleged mismanagement and
adverse reports during the trustees' tenure. The petitioner retains a
full and fair opportunity to present a supplementary reply and lead
evidence to rebut the added grounds during the inquiry. As such,
there is no prejudice to the petitioner.
14. In view of the above, the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner has rightly exercised the jurisdiction while rendering
the orders under challenge. There is no error or illegality that
warrants consideration.
15. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
16. Resultantly, pending civil applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…