SHIVAJI RANGNATH SONWANE AND OTHERSversusRAJPALSINGH BHOJ ALIAS RAJU MAHARAJ AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:37929

                                                 1
                                                                       wp-11821-2024

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE BOMBAY
                                     AT AURANGABAD

                                                                District: Aurangabad

                              WRIT PETITION NO.11821 OF 2024

                1.   Shivaji S/o Rangnath Sonwane,
                     Occu: Agriculturist & President of Kalimath Trust,
                     Upapla,
                     R/o Gurukunj, Plot No.89, Aadarsh Nagar, Hirapur
                     Road, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

                2.   Balbhim Sambhaji Ghavle,
                     Age: 71 years, Occu:
                     R/o Brahman Kuti, Ramnagar,
                     Ausa Road, Latur.

                3.   Mrs. Suchita Shivaji Sonwane,
                     Age: 49 years, Occu: Household,
                     R/o Kalimath, Tq. Kannad,
                     Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

                4.   Totala Guruprasad Jagdish,
                     Age: 46 years,
                     R/o Kalimath, Tq. Kannad,
                     Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

                5.   Dhananjay Narayan Nagre,
                     Age: 46 years,
                     R/o At Post Kathargaon,
                     Tq. Niphad, Dist. Nashik.

                6.   Mrs. Chitra Santosh Birajdar,
                     Age: 40 years,
                     R/o Arohi Building, Premnagar Society,
                     Plot No.4, Satara Road, Pune.

                7.   Kailas Babanrao Sonwane,
                     Age: 51 years,
                     R/o At post Patna, Tq. Chalisgaon,
                     Dist. Jalgaon
                                                                    …..PETITIONERS
                                                              (Original Respondents)
                                 2
                                                       wp-11821-2024

            VERSUS

1.    Rajpalsingh Bhoj (Raju Maharaj)
      Age: Major, Occ: Nil,
      R/o Kalimath, Upala, Tq. Kannad,
      Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

2.    The Assistant Charity Commissioner,
      Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
                                                 …..RESPONDENTS
                         (Respondent No.1-Original Defendant No.1.
                         Respondent No.2-Original Respondent no.1)
 ____________________________________________________________
Mr. Rahul Joshi h/f Mr. Raviraj Wakale, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms. Madhaveshwari Mhase i/b Mr. Pravin V. Kavde, Advocate for
respondent no.1
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for respondent no.2
 ____________________________________________________________

                CORAM                 : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                RESERVED ON           : 13TH AUGUST, 2026
                PRONOUNCED ON         : 21ST AUGUST, 2026

JUDGMENT :- (Per Court)

1.    Subject-matter :

      The Petitioner challenges legality and validity of the Judgment

and Order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Joint Charity

Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Revision Petition

No.26 of 2023. A decision and order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the

learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad in Inquiry

Application No.69 of 2013 filed u/s 50A(1) of the Maharashtra

Public Trusts Act 1950 [“the M.P.T. Act 1950” for brevity] is quashed

and set aside vide the present imugned judgment and order.
                                      3
                                                             wp-11821-2024

2.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the

parties, heard the petition for final disposal.



3.       Brief Facts of the case:

3.1      Kali Math Upla, Tk. Kannad, District Aurangabad is a Public

Trust registered in the office of the learned Assistant Charity

Commissioner, Aurangabad vide Registration Certificate dated

06.06.1988 [“the Trust” for brevity].

3.2      Petitioners are the managing trustees of the Trust. Respondent

was also a managing trustee of the Trust, who on account of medical

reason of his parents, voluntarily resigned of trusteeship. The

resignation is accepted.

3.3      The Petitioners submitted an applicaiton within the meaning of

Section 50(a) (1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 for framing

in a new scheme in substitution of the earlier one.

3.4      Vide Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2014, learned Assistant

Charity Commissioner Aurangabad pleased to allow the application

and approved the Scheme proposed by the Petitioners.

3.5      As against the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2014 referred

above, Respondent no.1 filed a Revision Petition No.26 of 2023

before     the   Learned    Joint   Charity   Commissioner    Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar.
                                    4
                                                          wp-11821-2024

3.6   After hearing the parties, learned Joint Charity Commissioner

pleased the allow the Revision Petition vide Judgment and Order

dated 26.07.2024, and set aside the Judgment and Order dated

27.01.2014 passed by the learned the then Assistant Charity

Commissioner Aurangabad in Application No.69 of 2013, and

disapproved the subsequent scheme.

3.7   It is against Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2024 delivered

by    the   learned      Joint   Charity   Commissioner    Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar in Revision Petition No.26 of 2023, the Petitioners

are before this Court.



4.    Petitioners’ submissions:

      Mr. Rahul Joshi, learned advocate h/f Mr. Raviraj Wakale,

learned advocate for the Petitioners raised multiple objections to the

findings recorded in the impugned Judgment and Order. For

convenience of adjudication, those are summed up as follows since

some of them are inter-related.

4.1   Admittedly, long back Respondent no.1 has voluntarily

resigned from the trusteeship. Hence he can not be termed as a

‘person having interest’ within the meaning of Section 2(10) of the

M.P.T. Act 1950.
                                    5
                                                             wp-11821-2024

4.2   Criminal prosecutions being faced by Respondent no.1 on the

charges of illegal activities committed by him against the Trust and

the Trustees demonstrate that those are detrimental to the interest of

the Trust. Hence, he cannot be termed as a ‘person having interest’ in

the wellbeing, welfare and interest of the trust.

4.3   The Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2014 in Inquiry

Application No.69 of 2013 was passed under the pre-2017

amendment provisions of the Act. As such, learned Joint Charity

Commissioner exercised jurisdiction not vested into his authority

thereby entertaining revision u/s 70A of the M.P.T. Act 1950.

4.4   The Revision Petition itself was not maintainable before

learned Joint Charity Commissioner, and hence the impugned

Judgment and Order is bad on the point of jurisdiction and

limitation.

4.5   Last but the not the least, it is against the spirit of the Act itself

that a long standing 09 year old Scheme lawfully approved by the

Competent Authority has been set aside by the impugned Judgment

and Order without appreciating goodness and merit of scheme.
                                    6
                                                          wp-11821-2024




5.       Respondent’s submission


         Ms. Madhaveshwari Mhase, learned advocate h/f Mr. Pravin

Kavde – learned advocate representing Respondent no.1 would

vehemently oppose the Writ Petition. She would also refer reply

affidavit filed by Respondent no.1 together with its annexures.

Ms. Mhase would meticulously answer each objection raised by the

Petitioners. Her response could be summarized as below:


5.1      It is an undisputed fact that Respondent no.1 was an erstwhile

member trustee. He resigned from the trusteeship on account of his

then bonafide inability to contribute in the Trust work owing to his

duty towards medical difficulty of his parents. His resignation in

these peculiar facts does not mean that he has no interest in the

Trust. It would be contrary to the Scheme of the Act itself, if only

member trustees are held as ‘persons having interest in the trust’.

Resignation is one thing, whereas loosing interest or adverse interest

is another thing. Hence on account of resignation, Respondent no.1

doesn’t incur disqualification to file proceeding in the interest of the

Trust.
                                    7
                                                          wp-11821-2024

5.2   So far criminal prosecutions are concerned, those are at the

behest of the Petitioners. There are criminal prosecutions against the

Petitioners too, rather of serious nature including theft of the Deity’s

ornaments etc. for which criminal prosecution is pending before the

competent Courts. Mere pendency of criminal prosecution shall not

prevent Respondent no.1 from taking up a cause before a Competent

Authority in the interest of the Trust.


5.3   The Revision u/s 70A is perfectly maintainable before learned

Joint Charity Commissioner. The provision squarely covers an order

passed u/s 50(A) of the Act. Wellbeing, better administration and

interest of the Trust are the only paramount considerations for taking

up cause before the Competent Authority. Hence, only because the

Judgment and Order impugned in the Revision Petition was passed

prior to 2017 amendment, it can not be said that learned Joint

Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to examine its legality and

validity. Once the amendment has become effective, Joint Charity

Commissioner enjoys jurisdiction over the Judgment and Order

impugned in the Revision Petition.

5.4   Even otherwise, considering the text of Section 70-A of the Act,

learned Joint Charity Commissioner even could suo moto examine

correctness of the order passed by learned Assistant Charity
                                     8
                                                             wp-11821-2024

Commissioner u/s 50(A) of the Act, since the said provision is

covered in Section 70(1) of the Act. As such, it could be held that

Respondent no.1 merely triggered the authority by mentioning the

illegality committed by the petitioners and also the errors in the

Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2014 passed by learned Assistant

Charity Commissioner.

5.5     Ms. Mhase, learned advocate would submit that in these

circumstances, it would be incorrect to say that learned Joint Charity

Commissioner had no jurisdiction to prevail upon the Judgment and

Order    dd.   27.01.2014   passed       by   learned   Assistant   Charity

Commissioner in Inquiry Application u/s 50(A) of the Act.

5.6     It is submitted that even the proceedings undertaken before

learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in the year 2013 was also

not bonafide. Initially the application was filed making other trustees

as respondents, and later they were transposed as applicants. Some

record was also fabricated which is evident from Exh.R-I at page

no.207 of the compilation which forms part of the reply affidavit.

There are restrictive orders against the Petitioners in the proceedings

u/s 41D of the Act. All this abundantly show that the Petitioners have

not approached any Court or any Authority with clean hands.
                                   9
                                                          wp-11821-2024

5.7     While concluding the submissions, Ms. Mhase advanced her

last but not the least submission on the objection of delay. She would

rely upon Section 70A of the Act, and submit that there is no rider of

limitation. If so, the right of Respondent no.1 as also the authority of

learned Joint Charity Commissioner to question correctness of an

order passed by learned Assistant Charity Commissioner is

unencumbered and not affected by any limitation. Ms. Mhase also

points out that the Petitioners have not raised specific ground of

delay in the Writ Petition pleadings, and hence scope of the Petition

can not be enlarged.

        With these submissions, learned advocate for respondent No.1

prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.



6.      Discussion and consideration

        I have extensively heard learned advocates for the respective

parties. It is evident that the contra interests inter-se the parties

resulted into various litigation including Trust proceedings and

Criminal prosecutions. There are multiple rounds of litigation among

the parties. I have taken on record rival submissions of the parties,

however refrained myself from commenting upon those. I restrict my

findings to the extent of correctness of the impugned Judgment and

Order    dated   26.07.2024    passed    by   learned   Joint   Charity
                                  10
                                                             wp-11821-2024

Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Revision Petition

No.26 of 2023. Considering the rival arguments, I propose to

adjudicate those as follows.

6.1   Maintainability of revision & issue of jurisdiction.

(a)   Major legislative changes occurred in the Maharashtra Public

Trusts Act 1950 in the year 2017, by enactment of Maharashtra Act

55 of 2017. A major effect of the amendment was elimination of

Section 72 which provided appellate remedies against decisions and

orders passed under some provisions. For the sake of convenience,

Section 72 as it stood prior to 2017 amendment, is reproduced as

below:

      72. Application from Charity Commissioner’s decision
      under section 40, 41, 41C and 43(2)(a) and (c), 50A,
      70 or 70A, etc.––
      (1)Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Charity
      Commissioner under section 40, 41, 41C and 43 (2)(a)
      and(c), 50A, 70 or 70A or on the questions whether a
      trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust or
      whether any property is the property of such trust may,
      within sixty days from the date of the decision, apply to
      the court to set aside the said decision.
      (1A)No party to such application shall be entitled to
      produce additional evidence, whether oral or
      documentary, before the Court, unless the Deputy or
      Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity
      Commissioner has refused to admit evidence which
      ought to have been admitted or the Court requires any
      document to be produced or any witness to be examined
      to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other
      substantial cause the Court thinks it necessary to allow
      such additional evidence:
                                 11
                                                        wp-11821-2024

            Provided that whenever additional evidence is
      allowed to be produced by the Court, the Court shall
      record the reason for its admission.
      (2)The court after taking evidence if any, may confirm,
      revoke or modify the decision or remit the amount of
      the surcharge and make such orders as to costs as it
      thinks proper in the circumstances.
      (3)Pending the disposal of an application under sub-
      section (2), all proceedings for surcharge shall be stayed
      if the person aggrieved makes out a prima facie case for
      a stay order.
      (4)An appeal shall be to the High Court, against the
      decision of the court under sub-section (2) as if such
      decision was a decree from which an appeal ordinarily
      lies.Explanation.— In this section, the expression
      “decision” shall include a scheme framed or modified
      under section 50A.


(b)   While deleting Section 72, the amendment of 2017 conferred

the appellate remedies on the Joint Charity Commissioner in respect

of certain orders. The subject-matter order below Section 50(A)

which place, stood restored in Section 70(1) at sub clause (c-2). The

amended Section 70(1) reads thus:

      70. Appeals from findings of Deputy or Assistant Charity
      Commissioner.—

      (1) An appeal [against the finding or order] of the
      Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may be filed
      to the Charity Commissioner in the following cases :—
      (a) the finding 3[and order, if any,] under section 20 ;
      (b) the finding under section 22;
      [(b-1) the finding under section 22A; ]
      (c) the finding under section 28 ;
      [(c-1) the order under section 41C; ]
      [(c-2) the order under section 50A; ]
      (d) the order under sub-section (3) of section 54 ;
                                 12
                                                        wp-11821-2024

      [(d-1) an order under sub-section (1) of section 79; ]
      [(e) an order confirming or amending the record under
      section 79AA.]
      (2) No appeal shall be maintainable after the expiration
      of sixty days from the recording of the finding or the
      passing of the order, as the case may be.
      (3) The Charity Commissioner may, after hearing the
      appellant or any person appearing on his behalf for
      reasons to be recorded in writing either annul, reverse,
      modify or confirm the finding or the order appealed
      against or he may direct the Deputy or Assistant Charity
      Commissioner to make further inquiry or to take such
      additional evidence as he may think necessary or he
      may himself take such additional evidence.


(c)   As such, the legislature did not leave an order passed u/s

50(A) of the Act without any appellate remedy. The appellate

remedy continued, except change of the provision.

(d)   Going back to 1954, a significant amendment we find to have

taken place by introduction of Section 70-A. This amendment

introduced an ultimate supervisory authority in Joint Charity

Commissioner. Section 70 A was inserted in the Maharashtra Public

Trusts Act 1950 vide Bombay amendment 59 of 1954 which is

reproduced as follows:

      [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 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
                                 13
                                                       wp-11821-2024

      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 Assistant 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 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.]


(e)   At first instance, although it appears that the provisions u/s

70A and Section 70(1) are overlapping, but it is not so. Both operate

independently and could be invoked in different scenarios. The

legislature has very cautiously added sub sections (2) and (3) to the

Section 70A which prevented authority granted to the Joint Charity

Commissioner under sub section (1), from being a superseding,

overlapping and a conflicting provision.

(f)   Both the sub sections lay down that the revisional jurisdiction

shall neither frustrate an appellate remedy nor would prevail over

any order passed in appeal.
                                14
                                                      wp-11821-2024

(g)   The provision is carved out to examine correctness of any

decision or order to the satisfaction of the Joint Charity

Commissioner. As such, the Joint Charity Commissioner is amply

powered to look into the procedural aspects, principles of natural

justice and objectives of the procedure undertaken by the Assistant

Charity Commissioner or Deputy Charity Commissioner, as the case

may be, while passing orders in the matters mentioned at Section

70(1) of the Act.

(h)   Turning to the objection on jurisdiction raised by Mr. Joshi,

learned advocate for the Petitioners, it would be wholly misplaced

contention that because the order u/s 50(A) of the Act was passed in

2013, the appeal ought to have been filed u/s 72 of the Act. Suffice

to note, due to deletion of Section 72 of the Act vide 2017

amendment, no such appeal could be filed.

(i)   True that Respondent no.1 did not avail the remedy u/s 70(1)

(c-2), however he took recourse to Section 70-A thereby requesting

learned Joint Charity Commissioner to undertake the impugned

order under his scanner.

(j)   This Court understands Petitioners’ arguments that what

Respondent no.1 could not do directly due to delay, is sought to be

done indirectly. The said legal proposition may not apply in the

peculiar facts and the contents of the Section 70-A. I have already
                                 15
                                                        wp-11821-2024

expressed my agreement over the findings of learned Joint Charity

Commissioner that such power could be invoked suo moto.

(k)   For the reasons recorded above, I am convinced that there is

no jurisdictional error in the impugned Judgment and Order passed

by learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Revision Petition, and the

revision was absolutely maintainable.


6.2   Locus of Respondent no.1


(a)   Looking to the rival averments, it is clear that the locus of

Respondent no.1 is quite a debatable issue for them, and may not be

concluded in the revision proceeding for the purpose of all the

litigations pending among the parties at various levels. In my view,

locus of Respondent no.1 has to be seen in the context of the revision

u/s 70(A) of the Act. The provision neither specify a category of

person entitle to take up proceeding under this provision nor prohibit

any specific type of person from initiating proceeding under this

provision.

(b)   May it be, since the provision also empowers learned Joint

Charity Commissioner to undertake revision suo moto as observed

by the authority, as also argued by learned advocate for Respondent

no.1, the impugned Judgment and Order can not be terminated only

on account of status of Respondent no.1. It may be said that
                                     16
                                                             wp-11821-2024

Respondent no.1 merely ignited learned Joint Charity Commissioner

to look into the matter, and the authority found it indispensable.

         Hence, I discard the objection on maintainability of the

revision before learned Joint Charity Commissioner, with reference

to locus of Respondent no.1.

6.3      Delay

(a)      Mr. Rahul Joshi, learned advocate vehemently argued that the

order u/s 50(A) of the Act was passed on 27.01.2014. Respondent

no.1 didn’t take recourse to the then Section 72 of the Act providing

Appeal. The revision is filed in the year 2023 i.e. after a gap of 09

years.

(b)      Ms. Mhase, learned advocate has submitted that there is no

pleading specifically objecting the proceeding u/s 70(A) on the point

of delay.

(c)      May it be, it is a trite law that delay is a mix question of facts

and law. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has spelled down on

the aspect of delay with elaborate reasoning at paragraph Nos.10 to

13 of the impugned Judgment and Order.

(d)      I have gone through the reasoning rendered by learned Joint

Charity Commissioner on delay. I find that there is no error in those

reasoning.
                                   17
                                                          wp-11821-2024

(e)   Section 70(A) does not contain any bar of limitation for

exercising revisionary power. Mr. Joshi vehemently submits that

where there is no provision of limitation, ordinarily the maximum

limitation has to be 03 years, and hence the impugned Judgment and

Order is liable to be struck down on the point of delay itself.

(f)   This Court while deciding a case i.e. Writ Petition No.3134 of

2019 Deepak Lagad Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner and ors. , which

is absolutely identical to the case in hand, observed that,

      13. It is true that, challenge to order dated 30.12.2008
      passed by learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in
      Enquiry No.1884/2008 is raised after period of 9 years
      in Revision filed under Section 70-A of MPT Act, 1950 by
      respondent nos.3 and 4 contending that they were never
      served with notices of meeting of General Body alleged
      to have been held on 25.06.2008. Such notice is
      manipulated. Their signatures are fabricated. The
      camouflage of election of Managing Committee of Trust
      in meeting held on 25.06.2008 is created. The Assistant
      Charity Commissioner has never served notices of
      enquiry in Change Report to them, although they were
      shown as outgoing Trustees. Considering nature of
      allegations, which has semblance of fraud, so also gross
      violation of principles of natural justice at hands of
      learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in conduct of
      enquiry under Section 22 of MPT Act, 1950, exercise of
      revisional jurisdiction would be apposite.

      14. It is true that, powers under Section 70-A of MPT
      Act, 1950 are required to be exercised within reasonable
      period. In case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors.
      Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Ors., Division Bench
      of this Court observed that although period of limitation
      is not prescribed for invoking powers under Section 70-A
      of the Act, it does not mean that such powers can be
                             18
                                                     wp-11821-2024

exercised at any time, rather it could be exercised within
reasonable time. What should be reasonable period for
exercise of powers always depends upon facts and
circumstances of each case. Similar view is taken by this
Court in case of Subir Kumar Banerjee & Ors Vs. Neetu
Singh & Ors ( Writ Petition No.11994 of 2019 decided
on 20.12.2019). In para 13, the following observations
are made :

       “13. Therefore, a Charity Commissioner may invoke
jurisdiction under Section 70A in any of the cases mentioned
in Section 70. While under Section 70 limitation period is
prescribed, for invoking jurisdiction under Section 70A in any
of the cases mentioned in Section 70, no limitation period is
prescribed. It is trite that though there is no period of
limitation prescribed for invoking jurisdiction under Section
70A, nonetheless such jurisdiction must be invoked or
exercised within a reasonable period. There is no defination
of reasonable period or what can be construed as reasonable
period. What is reasonable period in one case may not be a
reasonable period in another case. No fixed time frame can
be prescribed to determine reasonability. Whether revisional
jurisdiction under Section 70A has been invoked within
reasonable time or not would have to be decided in the facts
and circumstances of each case having regard to the 60 days
limitation period prescribed for filing appeal under Section
70.”
15. In present case, respondent nos.3 and 4 have
specifically contended that notice regarding meeting of
General Body was not served upon them, when election
of Managing Committee alleged to have took place.
Similarly, they were not given notice by learned
Assistant     Charity    Commissioner       in     Enquiry
No.1884/2008. According to them, they could get
knowledge of aforesaid order in the year 2017 i.e. just
before they approached learned Joint Charity
Commissioner in Revision Petition No.94/2017.
16. In aforesaid circumstances, learned Joint Charity
Commissioner thought it fit to exercise jurisdiction under
Section 70-A of MPT Act, 1950 and set aside order dated
30.12.2008 passed in Enquiry No.1884/2008 and remit
matter back for enquiry to Assistant Charity
Commissioner. Further, when there is prima facie
material to infer possibility of fraud or manipulation of
                                  19
                                                          wp-11821-2024

      records, learned Charity Commissioner is required to
      step in by exercising powers under Section 70-A of the
      MPT Act, 1950. In that view of matter, although there is
      delay of 9 years in filing Revision Application, in absence
      of material to demonstrate knowledge to respondent
      nos.3 and 4 regarding such change, cause put forth by
      them cannot be thrown away.


(g)   In the cited case too, there was delay of 09 years. Observing

that there were serious discrepancies in the reasoning recorded by

learned Assistant Charity Commissioner while deciding a case

mentioned in Section 70(1) of the Act, this Court upheld the power

and authority of learned Joint Charity Commissioner in scanning the

impugned order. It is further held that, the rider of delay would not

frustrate the very object of the provision u/s 70A of the Act.

(h)   The findings herein must not be mitaken that in any case , any

order, decision could be dugged out merely because limitation is not

provided for such delving by an authority. However, in the light of

the scheme under the Act of 1950, an illegality can not be allowed to

perpetuate on account of delay. This is particularly, where the

authority has exercised its inherent power and authority to supervise

the affairs of the business of office under its control, and the

decisions rendered by such authorities. Learned Joint Charity

Commissioner has given elaborate reasonsing as to what gross

violation of law and departure to mandatory provision has been
                                  20
                                                        wp-11821-2024

discovered while examining the record. An objection on delay and

exclusion of appellate procedure, does not prevent the Revisional

Authority from exercising its plenary powers u/s 70A of the Act and

the Scheme of the Act itself. In no event a party can take benefit of

its own wrong, citing a time gap of 09 years between the decision

and the revision. This is governed by the basic legal maxim ‘ nullus

commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria.’ Hence I discard

Petitioners’ last argument that a 09 year old trust scheme may not be

dismayed atleast considering its age.

(i)   Hence, I am in agreement with findings recorded by learned

Joint Charity Commissioner, as also the arguments advanced by

learned advocate for Respondent no.1, that the learned Joint Charity

Commissioner has rightly placed authority u/s 70A into service and

that the revision power is not defeated by any delay.


6.4   Correctness of impugned judgment and order:

(a)   The line between an appeal and a revision is broad and dark.

While in the former Appellate Authority is engaged in re-appreciation

of evidence, the latter entails examining correctness of the

order/decision under revision by skimming the record. In a revision,

the Revision Authority does not re-appreciate evidence; but has to

scan the record corresponding to the procedure and the law.
                                    21
                                                            wp-11821-2024

Procedural aspect and application of law are the two prominent

features of revision, to examine which, the Revision Authority can

summon the record and proceedings of a case.

(b)     In the context of these two concepts and the objection raised

by the Petitioner, we look into Section 50-A of the Act which reads

thus:

          [50A. Power of Charity Commissioner to frame,
        amalgamate or modify schemes.— (1) Notwithstanding
        anything contained in section 50, where the 4[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 5[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 [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 2[and also
        if necessary in any newspaper which in the opinion of
        the [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
                                  22
                                                         wp-11821-2024

      (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 [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.]


(c)   If the Joint Charity Commissioner records a finding that the

learned Assistant Charity Commissioner exercised authority u/s 50-A

of the Act dehors the procedure and law, revision stands justified.

For that assessment, looking to the record is not at par with looking

into the evidence. If learned Joint Charity Commissioner maintains

this discipline, neither it can be said that learned Joint Charity

Commissioner has exercised the jurisdiction not vested into him nor

it could be said that he exceeded the jurisdiction vested into him.

      Now in the light of aforesaid discussion, I turn to the merits of

the order passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner.

(d)   To maintain purity and sanctity of the proceedings under the

Act of 1950, the legislature has thoughtfully legislated Section 70A.

In terms of the Act, Charity Commissioner has the supreme authority
                                      23
                                                       wp-11821-2024

to supervise the business affairs in the Trust offices and to examine

legality and validity of any order passed by the subordinate

authorities.

(e)   It would advantageous to look into the Statement of Objects

and Reasons behind amendment in the Act of 1950 by incorporating

Section 70A into it. It reads thus:

      Clause 8 and sub-clause (1) of clause 9.- Experience has
      shown that the Charity Commissioner should have
      revisional power to call for and examine the record and
      proceedings before the Deputy or Assistant Charity
      Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to
      the correctness of any finding recorded or order passed
      by him and to annual, reverse, modify or confirm the
      finding or order recorded or passed by the Deputy or
      Assistant Charity Commissioner. No order annuling,
      reversing or modifying the order of the Deputy or
      Assistant Charity Commissioner should be passed by the
      Charity Commissioner without giving the party affected
      an opportunity of being heard. All the provisions that
      apply to an order passed by the Charity Commissioner
      under Section 70 will mutatis mutandis apply to an
      order passed by the Charity Commissioner under the
      proposed new section 70A.

               It is not in dispute that the designation Charity

Commissioner includes Joint Charity Commissioner within the

meaning of the Act.

(f)   In the instant case, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has

recorded that the then authority did not consider the procedure

while deciding the application, and bypassed the mandatory

provisions of law.
                                  24
                                                         wp-11821-2024

(g)     Learned Joint Charity Commissioner observed that the earlier

application No.01 of 2005 filed by Respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 11 to

12 was rejected by the then learned Assistant Charity Commissioner

in 2007 for want of prosecution. Hence subsequent application i.e. 69

of 2013 can not be termed as a good and appropriate proceeding

without setting aside the order in application No. 1 of 2005.

(h)     Substantial transposition of parties to the application was

effected by a non speaking order, that too, behind the back of

original Respondent nos. 10 to 12. Again a new application was filed

without arraying earlier Respondent nos. 10 to 12 as party

respondents.

(i)     Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has further observed that

neither notice was issued to the members whose names were on the

Schedule-I nor a public notice was issued. It is also observed that

there was suppression of material facts in the application No.69 of

2013.

(j)     Although the Petitioners have objected these observations

made by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, nothing is placed

before me to counter the findings on facts recorded by learned Joint

Charity Commissioner.
                                   25
                                                           wp-11821-2024

(k)   My findings are enthralled by the observations made by this

court in the case of Mallikarjun & ors. Vs. Shri Dattatraya Wadane

and ors. reported at 2005 (4) ALL MR 296. This citation was

beneficially placed on record by learned advocate for Respondent

no.1. At paragraph No. 14 to 16, this Court has elaborated the test to

undertake an exercise u/s 50(A) of the Act. Those findings read thus:

      14. In the light of above discussion regarding scope
      and ambit of the powers conferred by Section 50-A of
      the Act upon Charity Commissioner to settle
      scheme/new scheme in lieu of existing one, grounds at
      sr. nos.(iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) in para 2 ante can hardly
      provide reason, much less necessity or expediency to
      settle a scheme, although those may provide a reason for
      action against erring trustee/s. Instead of taking action
      against the erring trustees, removing them by framing a
      new scheme, in fact would be against the interest of
      trust, in view of the fact that not only mismanagement
      but even misappropriation is alleged against them and
      they may go scot free after removal as trustees. What is
      term necessary or expedient is borrowed in para 15 of
      the judgment in the matter of Dr. R. P. Kapoor from
      commentary on The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950,
      which reads as follows: "Necessary' and 'Expedient'
      meaning: This is a power conferred under the Act in a
      special contingency, when it is necessary or expedient to
      frame a scheme in the interest of a public trust. Recently
      the Gujarat High Court explained the words 'necessary'
      and 'expedient'. The 'necessary' means what is
      indispensable, needful and essential. The term has a
      precise meaning and a connotation and there is nothing
      vague or nebulous about it. The term 'expedient' has no
      doubt a wider ambit and gives much scope to the
      exercise of power. But this expression has also a
      recognised connection in the eye of law. The dictionary
      meaning of the term 'expedient' that what in the context
      it is used and which is most fitting is 'useful for effecting
      a desired result, fit or suitable for the purpose."
                            26
                                                   wp-11821-2024

(emphasis added) Even taking into consideration the
wider meaning of the term expedient, the Court ought to
come to a conclusion that it is desirable for achieving the
necessary result i.e. safeguarding the charity, to settle a
new scheme and, therefore, unless the learned Charity
Commissioner can arrive at a conclusion that existing
scheme is insufficient for the purpose, or that even after
amendment to the existing scheme the purpose of the
trust would not be served, the Charity Commissioner
would not be in a position to record a finding that it is
expedient in the interest of trust to settle a new scheme.

15. Having gone through the judgment of the Charity
Commissioner, the only sentence in the judgment which
touches to the issue of inadequacy of the existing scheme
reads as follows: "There is no adequate provisions made
in the old constitution to cope up with the day-to-day
administration of the trust." It must be said that the
observation is too general and vague. It does not
illustrate as to how the old scheme is inadequate, nor it
demonstrates as to how new scheme has coped up with
this aspect and bettered over the shortcomings in the old
scheme. In fact it was necessary for the Charity
Commissioner to demonstrate that even amendment of
the old scheme would not serve the purpose, before
embarking upon the exercise to substitute the same by a
totally new scheme. We may refer to a paragraph in the
internal pages 8 and 9 of the judgment (Paper Book
Pages 54 and 55). Learned Judge has referred to the
changes or rather provisions of the new scheme. On
comparison of this discussion with the old scheme, it can
be seen that all the the provisions in the new scheme
were already there in the old scheme. The membership
of two types i.e. life member and ordinary member was
in existence under old Rule 6. By new scheme, only
membership fee is increased to Rs.1001/- and Rs.101/-
p.a. for life members and ordinary members respectively,
instead of Rs.501/- and 51/-under the old scheme.
Although a form is prescribed for applying to be a
member, even under the old Rule 5(1) and (2), an
individual was required to apply for membership and he
could be granted membership only by resolution of
majority in the meeting of Board of Trustees as in the
                           27
                                                 wp-11821-2024

new scheme. So far as cancellation of membership is
concerned, old Rule 9 did make a provision for the same.
Only addition in the new scheme is of a new ground 1.e.
regarding removal from membership in case the member
acted against the interest of the Strust. Procedure for
filing in the vacancies was provided in old Rule 15(2)
and total Rule 15 spoke about rights and duties of the
Board of Trustees. There is some discussion about new
provisions also in the last paragraph of the judgment.
The provisions for meetings of the trustees, notice,
quorum etc., which are incorporated in the new scheme
were also in existence in Rule 14 of - the old scheme.
Rule 7 under the old scheme - provided for general body
meeting, although there was no provision for special
general meeting. Although it is said that new rule
regarding election is incorporated, the same was in
existence also in the old scheme (Rule 12). Rights and
duties of the office bearers Fi.e. Board of Trustees were
in Rule 15. In fact the contention that there was no
provision for amendment of the scheme in the old rules,
is patently false, because Rule 21 of the old scheme did
make a provision for the same. The discussion
hereinabove will demonstrate that all the provisions
referred by learned Charity Commissioner as making
new provision were already in existence in the old
scheme and couple of new provisions, which are also
indicated hereinabove could have been added by a
simple amendment. The argument of learned Advocate
Shri. Dhorde to that effect deserves to be upheld. As
directed by this Court, Advocate Shri. Dhorde has
provided a chart indicating the comparison of the
provisions of new scheme and old scheme, which is
taken on record and marked EXHIBIT 'A' for the purpose
of identification. Senior Counsel Shri. Shah has also
provided some another table, which to according which
did not exist in the old scheme. The respondents 2 and
3, are the new provisions, which did not exist in the old
scheme. The same is also taken on record and marked
EXHIBIT 'B' for the purpose of identification. On
referring to Exhibit 'B', following can be said to be new
additions in the scheme. Some more objects of the trust
incorporated, such as holding gatherings, conferences,
industrial and agricultural exhibitions. By new scheme,
                             28
                                                     wp-11821-2024

membership is restricted to the citizens of Osmanabad
district instead of to any Indian citizen as under the old
scheme. As already discussed hereinabove, increase in
the membership fee and additional ground for removal
i.e. acting against the interest of trust, are new additions.
Clauses 9 and 10 in the new scheme regarding eligibility
for being appointed as trustee and disqualification are
certainly new addition. Power of the Board of Trustees
under clause 12 of the new scheme are in more details.
So far as election is concerned, appointment of an officer
as Election Officer as nominated by the Charity
Commissioner is certainly welcome improvement.
Special General meeting is provided by the new scheme.
Under the new scheme, a post of Joint Secretary is
provided. Clauses 18, 19 and 20 under the new scheme
although are new provisions, as rightly pointed out by
Advocate Shri. Dhorde, those are just borrowings of
Sections 36-B, 35 and 36 from the Act and, therefore,
cannot be said to be new additions in the real sense. In
spite of some new additions, I am unable to appreciate
as to why these additions could not be incorporated
either by proposing an amendment under existing Rule
21 by procedure prescribed therein or by an application
to the Charity Commissioner under Section 50-A(3) of
the Act. I am also unable to appreciate as to how these
new additions are capable of making better provision for
day-to-day working of the trust than provisions under
old scheme.

16. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, it is
evident that the learned Charity Commissioner could not
have arrived at a conclusion of necessity or expediency
for settlement of a new scheme for the trust in question,
on the face of existing scheme and without arriving at a
conclusion that the same scheme could not have been
used by amendments. In fact this observation should
stand confirmed by taking into consideration the nature
of provisions which are new and not in existence in the
old scheme. Some of the new provisions are borrowings
from legal provisions such as Sections of the Act and all
are of such a nature that those could have been
incorporated by amendment. The finding of Charity
Commissioner, confirmed by the District Court, that it
                                     29
                                                                 wp-11821-2024

       was necessary and expedient to have a totally new
       scheme, is, therefore, not sustainable. In fact on
       reference to grounds (i), (ii), (v), (viii) to (xiii), in the
       light of new provisions, it can be said that there is hardly
       anything in the new provisions touching the aspects
       covered by those grounds.


(l)    Thus, I find that the impugned Judgment and Order neither

suffer jurisdictional error nor the learned Joint Charity Commissioner

has   erred     in   exercising   revision   jurisdiction   in     warranting

circumstances.

7.     Conclusion:

       From the aforesaid discussion I conclude that,

(a)    The Charity Commissioner carries plenary power to call and

examine record of any case and any order passed by the Deputy or

Assistant Charity Commissioner on any subject mentioned in Section

70(1) of the Act. The plenary power and authority conferred upon

the Charity Commissioner u/s 70A of the Act justifies him to pass

appropriate order even annulling, reverting, modifying, sustaining

the order under revision, as he deems fit;

(b)    In the case in hand, learned Joint Charity Commissioner did

not commit any error in invoking the power u/s 70A of the Act;

(c)    Any delay is not fatal to the proceeding u/s 70A in the given

set of facts;
                                   30
                                                          wp-11821-2024

(d)   An Appeal u/s 70(1) and a Revision u/s 70-A of the Act are

two independent proceedings which are neither mutually exclusive

nor overlapping to each others.

(e)   Date of passing an order u/s 50(A) of the Act- whether pre-

2017 amendment or post-2017 amendment, does not affect the

authority of Joint Charity Commissioner u/s 70-A of the Act;

(f)   This Court has not recorded any finding upholding or

disapproving locus of Respondent no.1 or his status as a ‘person

having interest’ in terms of Section 2 (10) of the Act.

8.    For the reasons recorded above, I find that the impugned

Judgment and Order could hardly be disturbed. Resultantly, the Writ

Petition fails. Hence I pass following order.

                                ORDER

      I.     Writ Petition stands dismissed.
      II.    Rule stands discharged.
      III.   No costs.


                                        (AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J)



.     After pronouncement of the judgment, learned Advocate for

the petitioners seeks stay to the judgment and order passed by this

Court. Since I have held that the Joint Charity Commissioner has

exercised his powers under Section 70-A of the 1950 Act, observing
                                  31
                                                         wp-11821-2024

serious illegality in the order passed by the then learned Charity

Commissioner in a proceeding under Section 50A of the Act, I do not

find the request to be accorded. Hence, the request is rejected.



                                          (AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J)

Rushikesh/2026