RUSHIKESH SHIVAJI BARHATE AND ANOTHERversusTHE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40011

                                                   (1)                   918-WP-1088-2023


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 918 WRIT PETITION NO. 1088 OF 2023

                               Rushikesh Shivaji Barhate And Another
                                              VERSUS
                            The Joint Charity Commissioner And Others
                                                 …..
           Mr. Khot Abhinay D, Advocate for the Petitioner.
           Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent – State.
                                                 …..

                                                 CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.


                                                 DATE     : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.

           PC :-

           1.        The petitioner filed a proceeding under Section 50-A of the

           Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”) for framing a scheme

           for a public trust, namely, Shri Mallikarjun, Manwat, Tq. Manwat, District

           Parbhani, bearing registration No.A/3508/Parbhani.

           2.        After concluding the requisite procedure, the said application under

           Section 50-A came to be partly allowed by the learned Assistant Charity

           Commissioner, thereby approving a scheme.

           3.        The petitioner found the scheme deficient to some extent as regards the

           directions or findings for appointment of the First Board of Trustees to take up

           further proceedings of the Trust, including elections of new trustees, etc.


           Kiran Kawre
                                         (2)                   918-WP-1088-2023


Hence, the petitioner took recourse to Section 70-A of the Act, 1950 before

the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, thereby putting this grievance on

record. The said application came to be turned down by the learned Joint

Charity Commissioner on 25 November 2021 in Revision Petition No.31 of

2021. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4.        Mr. Khot, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner

seeks very limited reliefs. He would submit that it was for the Revision

Authority, which has overall control over the affairs of the Trust and the

offices established under the Act, 1950, to remove the difficulty that has

arisen in the peculiar facts of this case. He would submit that the petitioner

can neither take recourse to Section 47 of the Act nor has the authority

designated the First Board of Trustees while framing the scheme. He would

submit that, in fact, while filing the scheme under Section 50-A of the Act, the

petitioner has given the list of the First Board of Trustees, which has not found

any reference in the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity

Commissioner.

5.        He would further submit that the petitioners has no claim that any

particular person be appointed out of the suggested names in the First Board

of Trustees. However, the grievance is that the authorities should, at least have

mentioned the First Board of Trustees so that further proceedings could be


Kiran Kawre
                                              (3)                        918-WP-1088-2023


taken. He points out that in the impugned order passed by the Revision

Authority, the Revision Authority has not at all touched upon this aspect of the

matter. With these contentions, he submits that the petition be allowed and

appropriate directions be issued to the authorities.

6.        Mr. Sonpawale, learned AGP, has appeared to assist the Court with

instructions from the Charity Commissioner’s office. He would submit that in

view of Section 56-C read with Section 56-RR of the MPT Act, the Tahsildar

could be seen as a Trustee of the subject Trust. He would then point out the

pleadings of the petitioner in Exhibit – A, wherein also there is also a recital

that the Tahsildar is the Trustee. He submits that if that is so, the petitioner

ought to have approached the Tahsildar with such request. However, he fairly

accepts that the impugned order, particularly paragraph No.8 thereof, is in

contravention with such instructions received by him. For the sake of

convenience, paragraph No.8 of the impugned order is reproduced thus:



        “(8)   As per the Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 the

        powers are wasted to the Commissioner for Charity appointing the trustees where

        there is no trustee or the trust can filled. is vacancies for such trust until the

        petition settled scheme the Assistant Charity Commissioner, by be administer In

        present the learned Parbhani, but, there is no any trustees appointed which shows

        that, there is and in absence trustees no any of to the Trust. of After considering


Kiran Kawre
                                               (4)                      918-WP-1088-2023


        the wording of section 50 (A any specific provisions appointment of first board of

        absence of any clause in that regard in trustees and in the scheme, I found that,

        the revision petition could not be allowed. Hence, I have recorded my findings

        accordingly and proceed to pass the following order:-

        1)     The revision petition is dismissed.

        2)     Inform to the concerned lower authority accordingly.

        3)     Entry of this order be taken on Schedule-I.

        4)     Record and proceedings be sent back to concerned Authority.

        5)     No order as to costs.”




7.        I find that the said order is prima facie deficit to arrive at any

conclusion. The Revision Authority, being head of the Trust in the State in

terms of Section 70-A of the MPT Act, 1950, has overall control over all the

affairs and all the records falling under its jurisdiction. Considering that the

present proceeding is not adversarial litigation, and where a party is seeking

simply directions as regards the appointment of First Board of Trustees, it was

expected that the Revision Authority, which is the supreme authority for the

Trusts in the State not only to pass an order but also to guide the parties in

that regard. The Revision Authority has made reference to Section 47 but has

neither discussed nor guided the petitioner as regards the authority with

whom such an application could be filed. Even otherwise, it is also noted by

this Court that the Revision Authority has not considered the law laid down by

Kiran Kawre
                                         (5)                   918-WP-1088-2023


the Division Bench of this Court in 1995 in the case of Gyandeo Devre Vs.

Ganpat & Ors.1. It must be borne in mind that it has been held by this Court

that Section 47 of the Act of 1950 could be invoked only for the purposes

which are mentioned in the Section itself, and not for other purposes. Now,

this is a case wherein Section 50-A of the Act was invoked by the petitioner

and the scheme is framed.

8.        In view of this, I deem it appropriate to relegate the matter back to the

Revision Authority i.e., the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, with a request

to pass appropriate and clear order on the point of appointment of the First

Board of Trustees. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Joint Charity

Commissioner on 15 September 2026 with a copy of this order. Thereafter,

within three months, the Revision Authority is requested to pass an

appropriate order in accordance with the process of law, as observed above.

9.        The Writ Petition stand disposed of accordingly.



                                               [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]




1 1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 99

Kiran Kawre