VITHAL DHONDAPPA BIRAJDARversusLD JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER PUNE DIVISION, PUNE AND OTHERS

                                                    J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 11541 OF 2025

Vitthal Dhondappa Birajdar                          ]
Age:59 years, Occ.: Agriculturist                   ]
R/o- Salgar Burdruk, Tal. : Mangalvedha             ]
Dist.: Solapur                                      ]       ...Petitioner
                                                    ]
           Versus                                   ]
                                                    ]
1.         Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner Pune      ]
           Division, Pune.                          ]
           Having office address at Survey No.45/2D ]
           B.S. Dhole Patil Road, Pune-411001       ]
           (Opposite Wadia College)                 ]
                                                    ]
2.         Ld. Deputy Charity Commissioner          ]
           Solapur Region, Solapur.                 ]
                                                    ]
3.         Ld. Assistant Charity Commissioner       ]
           Solapur Region, Solapur                  ]
                                                    ]
4.         Shikshan Prasarak Mandal                 ]
           Salgar Budruk, Tal.: Mangalvedha,        ]
           Dist.: Solapur                           ]
                                                    ]
5.         Sushil Jetyappa Mendgudali               ]
           Age: 47 years, Occ.: Agriculturist       ]
           R/o- Salgar Budruk, Tal.: Mangalvedha    ]
           Dist.: Solapur                           ]       ...Respondents

                                    …..
Adv. Manoj A. Patil a/w Adv. Shubham R. Dhenge, Adv. Akash M.
Murudkar, Kaustubh Rayrikar, and Adv. Ankita D. Mali, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Adv. S. S. Patwardhan a/w Adv. Raghvendra Kulkarni and Adv. Prasad
B. Kulkarni, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Mr. Jitendra P. Patil, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.



     ZIP                                                             1 of 10
                                                      J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


                                      …..


                                      CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                      DATE     : 25th AUGUST, 2026.

JUDGMENT :

           Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.         Heard both sides.

3.         Petitioner is assailing the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in

Miscellaneous Application No. 704 of 2025 in CR No. 695 of 2025 as

well as the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Enquiry No.

826 of 2025 by the Respondent No.3 - Assistant Charity Commissioner.

The petitioner is the opponent in Change Report Enquiry No. 695 of

2025 pending before the Respondent No. 3 - Assistant Charity

Commissioner. The controversy between the parties pertains to the

Respondent No. 4 - Trust which is registered under the Maharashtra

Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for sake of

brevity and convenience).

4.         The Respondent No. 5 is the reporting trustee of CR No. 695 of

2025 seeking approval of the election conducted for the period 2025 to

2028. Initially change report was filed before Respondent No. 2 -

Deputy Charity Commissioner but later on it was transferred to

Respondent No. 3 - Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Respondent

No. 5 had taken out Miscellaneous Application No.704 of 2025 seeking



     ZIP                                                               2 of 10
                                                      J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


provisional approval. The application was allowed by impugned order

dated 15.05.2025. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred review bearing

Miscellaneous Application No. 826 of 2025, which came to be rejected

by another impugned order dated 01.08.2025. Both impugned orders

are challenged predominantly on the ground of coram non judice and

mala fides.

5.         Undisputedly the roster of the matters in Pune division was fixed

by the orders passed by Divisional Joint Registrar Pune. An office order

No. 154 was issued on 03.06.2025 stipulating bifurcation of matter of

public trusts in Solapur District between Respondent No. 2 - Deputy

Charity Commissioner and Respondent No. 3 - Assistant Charity

Commissioner, as per the registration number. Accordingly, matters of

the Respondent No. 4 – Trust bearing registration number F-966 were

assigned to the Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Charity Commissioner

Solapur. In this backdrop, the submissions of the parties need to be

appreciated.

6.         Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Patil, submits that

both impugned orders are null and void for coram non judice as the

Respondent No. 3 – Assistant Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction

to decide the applications. It is submitted that deliberately Change

Report No. 695 of 2025 was transferred to the Respondent No. 3 to get

the favorable orders. The petitioner had filed caveat before the




     ZIP                                                               3 of 10
                                                   J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Charity Commissioner but mala fide

impugned orders are obtained from the Respondent No. 3. It is further

submitted that the Revision Application No. 31 of 2025 preferred by Mr.

Vaman Kulkarni before Respondent No. 1 - Joint Charity Commissioner

would not be an impediment for entertaining the present petition. It is

vehemently contended that reply filed by Respondent No. 1 - Joint

Charity Commissioner unequivocally supports the petitioner's case and

reiterates as to how there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in passing

the impugned orders. It is further contended that petitioner's Change

Report No. 908 of 2025 has been filed before the Respondent No. 2,

which is pending and is being entertained. Lastly it is contended that,

the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 has caused grave prejudice and is

against principles of natural justice.

7.         Per contra learned counsel Mr. S. S. Patwardhan appearing for

the Respondent No. 4 and 5 would bolster the submissions relying upon

affidavit in reply. He would submit that no fault or mischief can be

attributed to his clients for getting the change report listed before the

Respondent No. 3. His clients did not choose the forum. It was initially

filed by the Respondent No. 2 but transferred to the Respondent No. 3.

It is submitted that it's not a case of coram non judice because

Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Charity Commissioner as well as Respondent

No. 3 -Assistant Charity Commissioner both were having jurisdiction. It




     ZIP                                                            4 of 10
                                                         J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


is brought to my notice that there are various disputes in the trust and

on previous occasions by the judicial orders those were transferred to

the Respondent No. 3 Assistant Charity Commissioner. My attention is

adverted to those orders passed in MA No. 5 of 2023 and 18 of 2022.

8.           Learned counsel further submits that review bearing MA No. 826

of 2025 was not tenable due to filing of revision No. 31 of 2025 by Mr.

Kulkarni before Joint Charity Commissioner on identical grounds of

objections. It is submitted that the petitioner had alternate remedy of

either preferring appeal or revision against order dated 15.05.2025. My

attention is adverted to provisions of Order XLVII and Section 114 of

CPC. It is submitted that the interlocutory arrangement was required to

be made vide order dated 15.05.2025 considering exigency of the

administration of the trust.

9.           I have considered rival submissions of the parties. It is necessary

to consider following events, which are relevant to decide the

controversy between the parties:


i]           CR No. 695 of 2025 was filed on 30.04.2025.

ii]          Above CR was transferred to Respondent No.3 on 06.05.2025.

iii]         Revision No. 31 of 2025 was filed on 22.05.2025.

iv]          Review MA No. 826 was filed on 11.06.2025.


10.          The Respondent No. 1 was called upon to file affidavit in reply by




       ZIP                                                                5 of 10
                                                  J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


specific orders passed by this Court on 17.12.2025 so as to ascertain as

to whom the matters were assigned. It is confirmed by the Respondent

No. 1 that office order No. 154 was issued on 03.06.2025 and as per the

roster fixed by the Respondent No. 1 the matters were bifurcated

between     Deputy   Charity   Commissioner    and    Assistant       Charity

Commissioner according to the registration numbers of the trust. It can

be safely inferred that the Trust having registration No. F-966 was

specifically assigned to Respondent No. 2.

11.     The change report No. 695/2025 though filed before Respondent

No. 2 - Deputy Charity Commissioner was rounded up and marked to

Respondent No. 3 - Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Respondents

have also not disputed that the jurisdiction to entertain the change

reports of the Respondent No. 4 was with the Respondent No. 2 -

Deputy Charity Commissioner. The Respondent No. 1 received a report

from Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Charity Commissioner dated

20.06.2025 disclosing that as the previous change reports were assigned

to the Respondent No. 3. Thus, there is no iota of doubt that the change

report and the interim applications should not have been entertained by

the Respondent No. 3 as those were assigned to the Respondent No. 2.

12.     The interim application MA No. 704 of 2025 was considered by

the Respondent No. 3 and provisionally approved vide order dated

15.05.2025. The petitioner sought review of the order by preferring MA




  ZIP                                                              6 of 10
                                                    J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


No. 826 of 2025, which was rejected on 01.08.2025 by the Respondent

No. 3. The petitioner has challenged both orders before this Court. It

needs to be emphasized that order dated 15.05.2025 has been

independently challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and

nullity.

13.      Considering the office report submitted by the Respondent No. 2

and affidavit in reply of the Respondent No. 1, I do not find that there is

any deliberate attempt either on the part of the Respondent No. 4 and 5

or on part of any of the officers subordinate to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

to transfer CR No. 695 of 2025 intentionally to the Respondent No. 3.

Considering the previous record and orders passed in MA No. 18 of

2022 and 5 of 2023, the matter came to be transferred to the

Respondent No. 3 in routine manner. I have gone through orders passed

by Joint Charity Commissioner passed on 20.09.2022 in MA No. 18 of

2022 as well as 05.09.2023 in MA No. 5 of 2023 assigning the matters

to the Respondent No. 3. But those were specific matters assigned to it

and it was not the standing order of the Respondent No. 1 assigning all

matters of the trust in question to the Respondent No. 3. The

administrative order No. 154 dated 09.06.2023 would prevail and

therefore marking the matter to the Respondent No. 3 was illegal and

should not have been resorted to in casual routine manner.

14.      As per Section 22 of the Act, the change report can be




   ZIP                                                               7 of 10
                                                   J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


entertained either by Deputy Charity Commissioner or Assistant Charity

Commissioner. In the present case, the specific administration order

fixing the roster was in force. There was no any other reason for the

respondent No.3 to entertain the matters fo the respondent No.4 Trust.

The petitioner has made out a case of lack of jurisdiction in passing

both the impugned orders. The fall out of above discussion is that the

impugned orders are passed in violation of the administrative order and

cannot be sustained.

15.      The self imposed constraints upon exercise of jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not deter this Court in

entertaining present petition where first impugned order suffers from

lack of jurisdiction and nullity.

16.      Learned counsel Mr. S. S. Patwardhan adverted my attention to

Order XLVII of CPC to buttress that once revision No. 31 of 2025 has

been filed at the instance of Mr. Kulkarni, which is pending before Joint

Charity Commissioner on the selfsame grounds of objection, the review

preferred by the petitioner was not entertainable. This arguments would

have been accepted had the petitioner not challenged the order dated

15.05.2025 in the present petition independently. I have already

observed that present petition raises challenge to orders dated

15.05.2025 as well as 01.08.2025. Its a question of judicial discipline

and concomitance which is at stake in this case.




   ZIP                                                              8 of 10
                                                      J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


17.       Petitioner has also preferred CR No. 908 of 2025 which is

pending before the Respondent No. 2 in respect of the tenure which is

sought to be approved in CR No. 695 of 2025. However, the submission

of the respondent that the change reported by the petitioner is

afterthought would be subject to objective scrutiny. At this stage the

conduct of the petitioner cannot be castigated for filing the change

report belatedly.

18.       The alternate remedy was available to the petitioner against

order dated 15.05.2025, but in view of law laid down by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Versus Registrar of

Trade Marks, Mumbai And Others 1, this Court has jurisdiction to

undertake the judicial review of the orders passed without jurisdiction

and nullity. The petitioner has rightly relied in the matter of Dr. (Smt.)

Kuntesh Gupta Versus Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya,

Sitapur (U.P.) & Ors.2

19.       For the reasons stated above I pass following order:

                                     ::ORDER::

             A.   The order dated 15.05.2025 passed in MA No.

             704/2025 is quashed and set aside and consequential

             order dated 01.08.2025 passed in MA No. 826/2025 is

             also quashed and set aside.


1   (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1
2   (1987) 4 SCC 525.




    ZIP                                                                9 of 10
                                                       J-91-wP-11541-2025(C) .doc


           B. CR No. 695 of 2025 as well as MA No. 704 of 2025

           shall stand transferred to the Respondent No. 2 -

           Deputy Charity Commissioner.

           C. The parties shall appear before the Respondent No.

           2 - Deputy Charity Commissioner on 15.09.2026.

           D. The    respondent      No.2    –      Deputy      Charity

           Commissioner shall decide the change reports of both

           the   parties   and   shall   consider    application      for

           provisional approvals expeditiously after extending

           opportunity of hearing on their own merits.


20.     Rule is made absolute in above terms.


                                                 [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




  ZIP                                                                   10 of 10