Bombay High Court

NITIN MANOHAR SHINDEversusASHOKRAO SHANKARRAO KALE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

A change of a public trust’s name is permissible under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, does not require public notice, and Section 50A is inapplicable; therefore the revision authority’s dismissal of the petition was correct.

Summary

The petitioner, a former trustee of the Congress Bhavan Trust, challenged the approval of a change report that renamed the trust to Shri Saibaba Trust, alleging procedural violations and that the change was impermissible under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The respondent trustees argued that the name change was permissible under Section 22 of the Act and that no public notice was required. The Court examined the statutory provisions, including Sections 22, 17, 50A and the relevant Rules, and considered precedents such as Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti v. Charity Commissioner and National Egg Co‑ordination Committee v. State of Maharashtra. It held that a change of trust name is allowed at the trustees’ behest under Section 22, that Section 50A does not apply to a mere name change, and that the procedural requirements of public notice were not mandated for such a change. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the Deputy Charity Commissioner’s order or the Joint Charity Commissioner’s dismissal of the revision petition. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a change in the name of a public trust is permissible under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
Whether Section 22 of the Act is the correct provision for effecting a name change, or whether Section 50A should have been invoked
Whether the procedural requirements, including public notice and personal notice to the petitioner, were complied with in approving the change report
Whether the revision authority was justified in rejecting the revision application under Section 70A

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 — s. 17, 22, 50A, 70A
Maharashtra Public Trusts Rules, 1951 — s. 13, 5, 7-A, 8-A

Subjects

trust name change
public trust
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
procedural fairness
natural justice
revision petition
charity commissioner

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38784

(1) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 10761 OF 2024

District : Ahmednagar
Nitin Manohar Shinde,
Age:- 61 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Savlivihir, Nagar- Manmad Road,
Tq.Rahata, Dist.Ahmednagar ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Ashokrao Shankarrao Kale,
Age:- 72 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o.: At Post Mahegaon Deshmukh,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.

2. Ashutosh Ashokrao Kale,
Age:-40 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
R/o.: At Post Mahegaon Deshmukh,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.

3. Chaitali Ashokrao Kale,
Age:-35 years, Occu: Housewife,
R/o.: At Post Mahegaon Deshmukh,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.

4. Deputy Charity Commissioner,
Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ajinkya Kale, learned Advocate h/f. Talekar & Associates, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent No.4
Mr. Ganesh Asaram Gadhe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
RESERVED DATE : 25.08.2026
PRONOUNCED DATE: 28.08.2026
(2) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

JUDGMENT :-

1. The Petitioner takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by

the learned Joint Charity Commissioner-II, Pune on 30-07-2024 in Revision

Application No.67 of 2022. Vide the impugned order, challenge to the change

report approved by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner vide order dated

09-12-2019 in Change Report No.1292 of 2018, has been turned down.

2. Subject-matter : ‘Change in the name of a Public Trust’ is the subject-

matter of the Petition. Challenge rests on twofold grounds i.e. (i) Permissibility

of Change in Trust name; and (ii) Procedural aspect. The core issues involve

sub-issues which eventually arise for consideration.

3. Case laws: While the Petitioner relied upon a judgment and order

passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal no.5008 of

2018, respondent side relied upon the provisions of law.

For discussing the issues raised in the petition, I referred to (i) a

Judgment and Order delivered by Division Bench of this Court in a case

reported at Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti and Anr. vs. Charity

Commissioner of Maharashtra and Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3740]; and

followed by Single Bench in (ii) National Egg Co-ordination Committee vs.

State of Maharashtra and ors. reported at 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2410.
(3) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties,

the petition is heard for final disposal.

5. Brief facts:

i. A public trust namely ‘Congress Bhavan Trust, Kopargaon’ came to be

registered in the office of the Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar on

29-09-1987. Trust Scheme application No.06 of 2002 came to be allowed

by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar on

28-06-2002 thereby approving the trust scheme.

ii. The Petitioner - who was a trustee of the subject-matter trust, learnt on

15-08-2022 that respondents declared new name of the trust as

‘Shri Saibaba Trust Kopargaon’. On further enquiry, it was learnt that a

Change Report proceeding was filed by the Respondent nos.1 to 3 bearing

No.1292 of 2018 for effecting change in the name of the Trust before the

learned Deputy Charity Commissioner.

iii. That, without giving any paper publication and without giving any notice

to the Petitioner, the Change report proceeding came to be allowed vide

order dated 09-12-2019.

iv. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the learned Joint

Charity Commissioner Ahmednagar with a revision petition No.67 of 2022

u/s 70-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act 1950 [“the Act of 1950” for

brevity].
(4) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

v. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar heard the parties and

pleased to dismiss the application. Hence the Petitioner is before this

Court.

6. Submissions

Per Mr. Ajinkya Kale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner

i. The Petitioner was then holding the post of President, Indian National

Congress party, Kopargaon. He was party’s primary member.

ii. Out of the donations collected from the party members, the then party

members purchased properties bearing CTS No.1213 and CTS No.1214 at

Kopargaon for the purpose of erecting Party house.

iii. In the year 1987, three members of the Party formed a public trust

namely ‘Congress Bhavan Trust, Kopargaon’. The trust was registered at PTR

No.E-347/Ahmednagar. An Inquiry Application No.96 of 1987 was filed for

registration of the Trust, which came to be approved on 29-09-1987.

iv. A Scheme Application No.06 of 2002 was also filed by the Trustees for

framing of a trust scheme. The application came to be allowed vide Judgment

and Order dated 28-06-2002 by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner

Ahmednagar region.

v. The trust, which was formed by the party members of the Indian

National Congress used the premises constructed on the aforementioned plots

for party activities.
(5) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

vi. In due course of time, change reports were filed from time to time

corresponding to the change in the trustee members.

vii. A Change report No.451 of 2016 was filed for incorporating names of

three new persons consequent to death of three trustees. After inquiry, the

Change report No.451 of 2016 was allowed whereby names of present

Respondent nos. 1, 3 and one Mr. Sanjay Rohmare came to be incorporated as

trustees.

viii. Soon after the Change Report no.451 of 2016 was allowed, Five

members of the Trust conducted a meeting wherein on 22-04-2018,

a resolution was passed to change trust name from ‘Congress Bhavan Trust

Kopargaon’ to ‘Shri Saibaba Trust, Kopargaon’. Accordingly a Change Report

No.1292 of 2018 was filed in the office of the learned Deputy Charity

Commissioner, Ahmednagar.

ix. Learned Deputy Charity Commissioner neither issued any paper notice

nor even issued notice to the Petitioner, and yet allowed the Change Report

no.1292 of 2018. It is only on 15-08-2022, the Petitioner learnt about the

change.

x. The Trust itself was formed with an objection of promoting the activities

of Indian National Congress, and none else. Utilization of the property is

meant only and only for conducting activities of the Indian National Congress

party at Kopargaon. Change report no.1292 of 2018 didn’t remain to the
(6) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

extent of change in name, but practically the object of the Trust itself has been

washed out.

xi. The authorities ought to have considered this aspect of the matter.

Change in name must not be allowed which de-effect object of the forming a

Trust. The original trust name denotes object of the trust which is for conduct

and promotion of Indian National Congress. The new name denotes a religious

trust. The original trust was never a religious trust.

xii. Both the authorities failed to consider that Section 22 of the Act of 1950

was wrongly invoked by the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 for effecting change in

name, instead of Section 50-A of the Act of 1950.

xiii. No principles of natural justice were followed while allowing the change

in trust name nor the authority observed the procedure.

With this, the Petitioner concludes his argument praying to struck down

the Change report No.1292 of 2018 thereby setting aside the orders passed by

the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner and the learned Joint Charity

Commissioner.

Per Mr. Ganesh Gadhe, learned advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 3

i. There is neither any legal defect nor any procedural defect in approval

of the Change Report No.1292 of 2018.

ii. Change in name of the trust is absolutely permissible as per the

provisions of the Act of 1950 and the Rules thereunder.
(7) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

iii. Section 22 R/w Section 17 of the Act of 1950 with Rules 5, 8 and 13 of

the Rules and the Schedule I clearly demonstrate that there is no legal hurdle

in changing name of a trust.

iv. No provision requires a public notice to be published in newspaper for

effecting change in the trust name.

v. Inquiry u/s 22 of the Act of 1950 was duly conducted by the learned

Assistant Charity Commissioner, which is rightly approved by the revision

authority u/s 70A of the Act of 1950.

vi. The Petitioner did not have any locus standi to file the revision itself.

vii. Reference and reliance on Section 50-A is misconceived at the behest of

the Petitioner.

viii. With this, Mr. Gadhe concludes his arguments praying to dismiss the

Writ Petition.

Per Mr. R K Ingole Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader

i. Learned Assistant Government Pleader echoes the arguments of

Respondent nos. 1 to 3.

ii. He submits that there is no procedural defect in passing both the orders

by respective authorities.

iii. The change and change report is absolutely permissible. Learned

Assistant Charity Commissioner exercised such jurisdiction which is conferred

on him u/s 22 of the Act of 1950. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner is the
(8) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

Revision Authority having overall control and supervision over the subordinate

authorities. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has examined the record of

the subject-matter change report and the order passed by learned Assistant

Charity Commissioner, and found that there is no illegality.

With these submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader too,

prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Consideration and findings

Challenge in the present petition is only to the extent of Change in the

Trust name. Considering the rival arguments, I find that following issues

emerge for consideration :

(a) Whether Change in Trust name is permissible?

(b) Whether recourse to Section 22 for the Change report No.1292 of

2018 was mistaken, instead of taking recourse to Section 50A of

the Act of 1950?

procedure while approving the Change report No.1292 of 2018?

(d) Whether the Revision Authority is justified in rejecting the

revision?

i. In the light of above issues, the objection raised by the Petitioner, and

the defense of the Respondent nos.1 to 3, it is required to see whether

Section 22 of the Act of 1950 permits such change.
(9) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

ii. Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1950 speaks thus:

22. Change.— (1) Where any change occurs in any of the entries
recorded in the register kept under section 17, the trustee shall, within
90 days from the date of the occurrence of such change, or where any
change is desired in such entries in the interest of the administration
of such public trust, report such change or proposed change to the
Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in charge of the Public
Trusts Registration Office where the register is kept. Such report shall
be made in the prescribed form.

iii. Thus, the procedure u/s 22 covers recording a change of the entries

recorded in the register kept u/s 17 of the Act of 1950. Hence we now

look into Section 17 which reads thus:

17. Books, indices and registers.— In every Public Trusts Registration
Office or Joint Public Trusts Registration Office, it shall be the duty of
the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in charge to keep and
maintain such books, indices and other registers as may be prescribed.
Such books, indices and other registers shall contain such particulars
as may also be prescribed.

iv. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1951 under the Act of 1950 provides thus:

5. Maintenance of a Register of Public Trusts. In every Public Trusts
Registration Office or Joint Public Trusts Registration Office there shall
be maintained a Register of Public Trusts in the form of Schedule I
hereto in respect of public trusts registered or deemed to be registered
under the Act:
( 10 ) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

Provided that the Charity Commissioner may, in the case of any Public
Trusts Registration Office or Joint Public Trusts Registration Office,
direct the maintenance of such a register separately for different
classes of public trusts or areas within the region or sub-division.

v. So, Section 17 and Rule 5 bring into picture, Schedule-I i,e. register of

public trusts. The register contains total 28 entry columns. At Column

no. 2 of the Schedule-I, there is entry of Trust name.

vi. Further, Rule 13 of the 1951 Rules speaks that,

13. Changes in the Register of Public Trusts. (1) Any change or
proposed change in any of the particulars recorded in the Register of
Public Trusts shall, under subsection (1) of section 22, be reported to
the Deputy Charity Commissioner or Assistant Charity Commissioner
by the trustee of the trust concerned in the form of Schedule III hereto
and such report shall be verified in the manner provided in sub-rule
(4) of rule 6.

vii. Going back to Rule 8-A, it is clear that the Rules even provide for the

procedure to be adopted post change in the name. Rule 8-A reads thus:

8A. Registration of public trust when its name is duly changed.:-
Where the name of any trust is duly changed and the Deputy or
Assistant Charity Commissioner records this change of the name in
respect of the trust in the Register of Public Trusts, the Deputy or
Assistant Charity Commissioner may either correct the original
certificate is produced, or issue a fresh certificate of registration in the
new name with the original registration number on payment of a sum
( 11 ) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

not exceeding one rupee.

viii. That means the law recognizes change in the trust name. This Court

while deciding the legality of a circular issued by the Charity

Commissioner directing deletion of certain portion from a category of

public trusts which was done as a change in the trust name, held that

‘change in the trust name is permissible only at the behest of the

trustees’. It was a case of jurisdiction and power of the Charity

Commissioner to direct change in the trust name. In case of Manvi

Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti v. Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra

[2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3740], this Court observed at paragraph No.25

thus:

25. Now we propose to analyse the provisions of the Maharashtra
Public Trusts Act on the issue raised for our consideration. Section 18
of the said Act provides for registration of public trust to be made by
way of an application to the authorities under the Act and the
application shall contain inter alia various information including the
designation by which the public trust shall be known. On receipt of
the said application, an enquiry is conducted by the authorities under
the Act and only on completion of the enquiry and on the satisfaction
of the authorities that a registration is granted, entries are made in the
register maintained for the said purpose. Section 21(2) states that the
entries so made shall be final and conclusive subject to the provisions
of this Act or subject to any change recorded. Section 22 deals with
the provisions relating to change and the procedure to be followed.
( 12 ) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

This change has to be at the behest of the trustee which results into
change in the entries recorded under Section 21, and on enquiry and
satisfaction of such a change same has to be recorded in the register.
Rule 8-A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Rules provides that when
the name of any trust is changed the authorities would record the
same in the register maintained and a fresh certificate would be
issued.

ix. This view is adopted by learned Judge of Single Bench of this Court in

the case of National Egg Co-ordination Committee (supra) re-iterated

the law referred in the case of Manvi Hakka (supra). It was also a case

wherein an Authority has directed to delete the word ‘National’ from the

trust name. It was re-iterated that such change in name is not

permissible in view of the Manvi Hakka case (supra).

x. Thus, it is abundantly clear that change in trust name is permissible in

the Act of 1950 at the instance of the Trustees. The Rules provide for

the procedure. Reading the provision under the Act and the Rules in

harmoniously, it is apparent that change in any entry in the particulars

mentioned at Schedule-I of the 1951 Rules can be undertaken u/s 22 of

the Act of 1950. Thus, the 1st issue framed above stands answered.

xi. Now it needs to see whether Section 50-A of the Act of 1950 ought to

have been invoked by the Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Text of Section 50-A

reads thus ;
( 13 ) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

[50A. Power of Charity Commissioner to frame, amalgamate or
modify schemes.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
section 50, where the 3[Assistant or Deputy Charity
Commissioner] has reason to believe that, in the interest of the
proper management or administration of public trust, a scheme
should be settled for it, or where two or more persons having
interest in a public trust make an application to him in writing in
the prescribed manner that, in the interest of the proper
management or administration of a public trust, a scheme should
be settled for it, the 3[Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner]
may, if, after giving the trustees of such trust due opportunity to
be heard, he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do,
frame a scheme for the management or administration of such
public trust.

(2) Where the 3[Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner] is of
opinion that in the interest of the proper management or
administration, two or more public trusts may be amalgamated
by framing a common scheme for the same, he may, after—

(a) Publishing a notice in the Official Gazette 4[and also if
necessary in any newspaper which in the opinion of the
3
[Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner] is best calculated to
bring to the notice of persons likely to be interested in the trust]
with a wide circulation in the region in which the trust is
registered, and

(b) giving the trustees of such trusts and all other interested
persons due opportunity to be heard, frame a common scheme
for the same.

(3) The 3[Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner] may, at any
time, after hearing the trustees, modify the scheme framed by
him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).

(4) The scheme framed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
or modified under sub-section (3) shall, subject to the decision of
the Charity Commissioner under section 70, have effect as a
scheme settled or altered, as the case may be, under a decree of a
Court under section 50.]
( 14 ) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

xii. Ex-facie, the power to be exercised u/s 50-A of the Act of 1950 is for

framing, amalgamating or modifying a scheme. In the case in hand, the

Change Report is only in respect of change in Trust name from

‘Congress Bhavan Trust, Kopargaon’ to ‘Shri Saibaba Trust Kopargaon’.

xiii. Learned advocate for the Petitioner was at pains to agitate that change

in name is in such a fashion and style, that it has virtually dropped the

original scheme framed by the trustees. However, he had to agree that

the Change Report No.1292 of 2018 is only for change in name.

xiv. I refrain myself from commenting upon the scheme, its contents and

impact of the change for the reason that the issue before me is only in

respect of Change in name.

xv. Hence, going litera legis Section 50-A of the Act of 1950 I struck down

Petitioner’s objection that instead of Section 50-A, recourse by the

Respondent nos. 1 to 3 to Section 22 of the Act of 1950 was erroneous.

Here, the 2nd issue stands answered.

xvi. The 3rd and 4th moot issues could be discussed together. While it is

foremost contention of the Petitioner that Public notice in newspaper

was mandatory to exercise power u/s 22 of the Act of 1950, the other

side submits that public notice under Rule 7-A of the 1951 Rules is

contemplated only if there is change in property or inquiry about
( 15 ) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

existence of a trust.

xvii. Let us now see what Rule 7-A (1) of the Rules of 1951 says.

7A. Public notice before making certain inquiries.

(1) When on application or otherwise, any inquiry is to be made for
purposes of sections 19, 22, 22A, 28 or 29 as to whether a public trust
exists or whether any property belongs to a public trust, the Deputy or
Assistant Charity Commissioner shall, subject to the provisions of this
rule, give public notice of such inquiry as provided in subrule (3) by
calling upon all persons concerned to submit their objections, if any, to
him.

The further sub-rules provide the procedure.

xviii. It is evident that the mandate of public notice is made for the inquiries

are undertaken u/s 19, 22, 22-A, 28 or 29 of the Act of 1950 only where

the inquiry is in respect of existence of a trust or about ownership of

trust over a property. The legislature has specifically mentioned the

purpose of the inquiries under the given provisions, to which public

notice is necessary. Out of those section, some like Section 22 contain

inquiries for such purposes which are in addition to existence of trust or

about ownership of trust over a property. The purpose ‘change in the

record’ is excluded in the section. Had the intention of legislature been

for mandating public notice to all inquiries under the given Sections,

there would not have been specific mention of the purposes of inquiries.
( 16 ) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

Hence, it can not be accepted that a public notice is required in inquiry

u/s 22 of the Act of 1950 for the purpose of effective change in the

name of the Trust u/s 22 r/w Section 17, Rule 5 r/w Schedule-I.

xix. Now the last objection remains about no personal notice to the

Petitioner during the inquiry for change in the trust name. Learned Joint

Charity Commissioner has observed that the Petitioner fails to point out

as to how he was a necessary party for the inquiry calling upon the

authority to give him personal notice. There are specific observations by

the revision authority as regards to the personal hearing and the

procedural compliance. U/s 70-A of the Act of 1950, Joint Charity

Commissioner is the competent authority and has overall supervisory

powers to examine correctness of the record and the orders passed by

the subordinate authorities. In the case in hand learned Joint Charity

Commissioner has recorded his satisfaction as to the correctness of the

procedure and the legality of the order approving the Change Report

No.1292 of 2018.

xx. I have cautiously gone through a judgment and order passed by High

Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal no.5008 of 2018, relied

upon by learned advocate for the Petitioner. Facts are quite different

from the case in hand. It is held that Section 22-A could not have been

invoked for change in the trust name. In the case in hand too, Section
( 17 ) WP 10761 of 2024.odt

22-A is not invoked. In the cited case, order passed by the learned

District Judge was held to be beyond the jurisdiction u/s 72(1) and (2)

of the Trust Act. Apparently, this order is of no avail to the Petitioner.

Hence I respectfully decline to apply the said ratio to the case in hand.

xxi. I don’t find any fatal defect in the order on revision application and the

findings recorded by the authority. Rather, each material point to

examine correctness of the order under challenge, the procedure and

every aspect of the matter has been discussed by the learned Joint

Charity Commissioner. That way, I do not find any reason to cause

interference into the impugned order.

Thus, the issues nos. (iii) and (iv) are also answered accordingly.

8. Conclusion: For the reasons recorded, I do not find any infirmity in the

order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in turning down the

revision application u/s 70-A of the Act of 1950, nor there is any flaw in

approving the change report recording change of trust name. Hence the Writ

Petition fails, and accordingly I pass following order :

ORDER

1. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

2. Rule stands discharged.

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…