Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NARESHWAR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL SANASWADI THR. ITS TRUSTEES AND ORSversusLD. DEPUTY CHARITY COMMISSIONER PUNE AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable as Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 provides an exclusive remedy before the Charity Commissioner.

Summary

The Nareshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 30‑06‑2025 of the Deputy Charity Commissioner and to direct the Mandal to conduct elections based on a specific membership list. Respondent No.2 objected, contending that the petition was not maintainable because Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 allows an exclusive remedy before the Charity Commissioner. The petitioners relied on a Division Bench decision of the Nagpur Bench in Vanmala Manoharrao Kamdi v. Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, arguing that the writ could still be pursued. The Court examined the statutory scheme and held that the statutory remedy under Section 70A is exclusive, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, advising the petitioners to approach the Charity Commissioner for a stay and revision of the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the provisions of Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950
  • Whether the petitioners can bypass the statutory remedy of approaching the Charity Commissioner

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • writ of certiorari
  • maintainability
  • statutory remedy
  • Maharashtra Public Trust Act
  • Charity Commissioner
  • trust elections
  • civil imprisonment
  • stay application

Judgment

PDP                                                     904-WP-11528-2025.doc


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 11528 OF 2025

Nareshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Sanaswadi, through its
Trustees – 1. Annasaheb Darekar
& Ors.                                       .. Petitioners

             Vs.

Ld. Deputy Charity Commissioner,
Pune & Anr.                           .. Respondents
                                 ...
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Mr. Kshitij Munj, Ms. Pooja Chavan i/by
Ms. Neha Wadekar for the Petitioners.
Smt. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader a/w Smt. Pooja Patil, AGP
for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w Shivkumar S. Jangwad for Respondent
No.2.

                                       ...

             CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                     ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

            DATE       : 6th OCTOBER, 2026.

P.C. :

1.          We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and

the learned Counsel for the Respondents.



2.          The instant Writ Petition is preferred, inter alia, praying for

the following substantive reliefs: -




                                       1
PDP                                                  904-WP-11528-2025.doc


           “(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of
           certiorari or any other writ or order or any direction in the
           nature of writ of certiorari and thereby quashing, setting
           aside the impugned order dt. 30.06.2025 passed by the Ld.
           Deputy Charity Commissioner, Pune at ‘Exh.F’ to the
           present petition.

           (b)  Consequently this Hon’ble Court may by appropriate
           writ direction be pleased to direct the present Karyakari
           Mandal i.e. Petitioners to conduct the elections for the tenure
           2024 to 2029 on the basis of the membership list finalized
           by the Karyakari Mandal at ‘Exh.B’ to the present petition
           respectively.”

3.         At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2

raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant Writ Petition

in view of the provisions under Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public

Trust Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act of 1950”), whereby the Charity

Commissioner can call for and examine records and proceedings

before the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner. As such, it is

submitted that once the Petitioners are having an efficacious remedy

to approach the Charity Commissioner under revision in view of

Section 70A, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory

remedy/Forum. Moreover, the disputed facts can also be pressed

before the Charity Commissioner. For ready reference, Section 70A of

the Act of 1950 is reproduce hereunder: -

          “70A. Charity Commissioner to call for and examine
          records and proceeding before Deputy or Assistant
          Charity Commissioner.

          (1)   The Charity Commissioner may in any of the cases
                                2
PDP                                                        904-WP-11528-2025.doc


               mentioned in Section 70, either suo motu or on application
               call for and examine the record and proceedings of such
               case before any Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner
               for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of
               any finding or order recorded or passed by the Deputy or
               Assistant Charity Commissioner and may either annul,
               reverse, modify or confirm the said finding or order or may
               direct the Deputy or Charity Commissioner to make further
               inquiry or take such additional evidence as he may think
               necessary or he may himself take such additional evidence:

                     Provided that, an application under this sub-section
               shall be submitted to the Charity Commissioner within one
               hundred and twenty days from the date of recording of the
               findings or the passing of the orders, as the case may be:

                      Provided further that the Charity Commissioner
               shall not record or pass any orders without giving the party
               affected thereby an opportunity of being heard.

               (2)   Nothing in sub-section (1) shall entitle the Charity
               Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any case,
               -
                     (a)   during the period in which an appeal under
               Section 70 can lie against any finding recorded by the
               Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner in such case, or

                    (b)  in which an order has been passed in an appeal
               made under section 70.”


4.              Confronted with the aforesaid situation, learned Counsel for the

Petitioners submits that, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench

of this Court, Nagpur Bench, in Vanmala Manoharrao Kamdi & Ors. v.

Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors.,1 the Petitioners are still

entitled to pursue the instant Writ Petition. However, in the event the

matter is relegated under Section 70A of the Act of 1950, the Respondents

1     2012 (3) Mh.L.J. 594
                                         3
                        PDP                                                              904-WP-11528-2025.doc


                        may      be   restrained   from   raising       an   objection   before    the     Charity

                        Commissioner that such proceedings are not maintainable. The said course

                        is voluntarily accepted by learned Counsel for the Respondents.



                        5.             Lastly, it is contended that there is every likelihood of the

                        Petitioners being subjected to civil imprisonment tomorrow. We find

                        that the substantial rights of the Petitioners would be protected if they

                        approach the Charity Commissioner within one week, along with an

                        Application for Stay. We expect the Stay Application shall be

                        considered by the Charity Commissioner in further six weeks’ time

                        and the Revision be decided on its own merits and in accordance with

                        law.     Until the disposal of the Stay Application, in the interest of

                        justice, parties shall maintain status quo as on today.



                        6.             In view of the above, the instant Writ Petition stands

                        Disposed Of.



                             [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                                  [CHIEF JUSTICE]



          Digitally signed
          by PRAVIN
PRAVIN    DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT    Date:
          2026.10.06
          18:30:57 +0530




                                                                    4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.