NAV CHAITANYA MITRA MANDAL THRU. CHAIRMAN ASHOK P. SURAVASEversusTHE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER PUNE AND ORS

                                             7-WP17007-2925+.DOC

                                                          Santosh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
            WRIT PETITION NO. 17007 OF 2025

Nav Chaitanya Mitra Mandal                          ...Petitioner
                  Versus
The Joint Charity Commissioner Pune And
Ors.                                              …Respondents
                            WITH
               WRIT PETITION NO. 13284 OF 2025

Nav Chaitanya Mitra Mandal Through
Chairman Ashok P. Suravase                          ...Petitioner
                  Versus
The Joint Charity Commissioner Pune And
Ors.                                              …Respondents

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Ashish S. Gaikwad,
     Mr. Ujjwal Agandsure, Mr. Anirudh R. Rote, Mr. Sagar G.
     Bhoir, Mr. Ashish Jadhav and Savita Gaikwad, for the
     Petitioner.
Mr. Sohan Gunjal, for Respondent Nos.3 to 6.
Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for the State in WP/17007/2025.
Ms. Savina Crasto, AGP in WP/13284/2025.

                             CORAM:    N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                             DATED:    21st SEPTEMBER, 2026

Oral Order:-

1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.


2.   The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 27 th

June, 2025 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner,

Pune, in Appeal No. 102/2023 and Appeal No. 101/2023,

whereby the appeals preferred by the respondents against the

order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune,
                              1/5
                                                   7-WP17007-2925+.DOC

thereby accepting the Change Report Nos.2560/2021 and

2561/2021, came to be allowed and the change reports filed by

the petitioners were rejected.


3.   It appears that the change reports were allowed by the

Assistant Charity Commissioner on 14th December, 2021, and

respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein had preferred an appeal on 16 th

October, 2023. In the intervening period, the respondents had

filed an application for review before the Assistant Charity

Commissioner and those review applications were dismissed by

the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 21st August, 2023.

Thereafter, the appeals were preferred by the respondents.


4.   In   the   appeals   before       the   learned   Joint   Charity

Commissioner, the petitioners – respondents therein, primarily

raised the ground that the appeals were filed beyond the

stipulated period of limitation. By the impugned orders, the

learned Joint Charity Commissioner was persuaded to reject the

said contention on behalf of the petitioners by ascribing

reasons. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has expressly

recorded that no other ground was urged on behalf of the

respondents therein.


5.   The principal grievance of Mr. Desai, the learned Senior

Advocate for the petitioners is that, the petitioners were not
                                 2/5
                                                 7-WP17007-2925+.DOC

provided an effective opportunity of hearing to support the order

passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on merits. Since

the bar of limitation was urged, if the learned Joint Charity

Commissioner was not inclined to accept the said contention

and decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeals on

merits, an effective opportunity of hearing should have been

given to the petitioners.


6.    Mr. Gunjal, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3

to 6 countered the submissions on behalf of the petitioners. It

was urged that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has

explicitly recorded that though the respondents – petitioners

herein, appeared before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner

yet they did file reply to the appeals. It was for the petitioners to

agitate all the grounds before the learned Joint Charity

Commissioner. Since the learned Joint Charity Commissioner

has adverted to the grounds raised in the appeal-memo, it

cannot be said that the appeals have not been decided on

merits.


7.    I have perused the impugned orders. At more than one

places, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded

that the respondents have resisted the appeals on the ground of

bar of limitation only. Even in the concluding paragraph of the

                                3/5
                                                7-WP17007-2925+.DOC

impugned orders, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner

observed that the respondents therein had not raised any other

ground except the bar of limitation. It thus becomes clear that,

since the learned Joint Charity Commissioner decided to

entertain the appeals discarding the objections as to the

limitation, the petitioners did not get an opportunity to resist

the appeals on merits nor did the learned Joint Charity

Commissioner hear the petitioners on merits of the order

impugned before him.


8.     In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to remand

the appeals back to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner for

afresh decision on merits.


9.     The petitions, thus, stand partly allowed.


10.    The impugned orders stand quashed and set aside.


11.    The appeals stand restored to the file of the learned Joint

Charity Commissioner for afresh decision in accordance with

law.


12.    It is hereby made clear that, the petitioners shall not be

entitled to raise the ground of bar of limitation in preferring the

appeal.




                                4/5
                                                 7-WP17007-2925+.DOC

13.   The learned Joint Charity Commissioner is requested to

decide the appeals as expeditiously as possible and, preferably,

within a period of three months from 5th October, 2026.


14.   The parties shall appear before the learned Joint Charity

Commissioner on 5th October, 2026.


15.   No separate notice be issued to the parties to these

petitions.


16.   It is hereby made clear that this Court has not entered

into the merits of the matter and all contentions of all the

parties are kept open for adjudication by the learned Joint

Charity Commissioner.


17.   The petitioners are at liberty to file an affidavit-in-reply to

meet the grounds raised in the appeal-memo, within a period of

one week from today.


18.   The respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein are at liberty to file an

affidavit-in-rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the

petitioners, within one week thereafter.


                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                                5/5