Bombay High Court
RAJESH HIRALAL BHARATIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THRU THE REVENUE MINISTRY
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Intervention under Section 73A cannot be entertained when the substantive proceeding under Section 36(1)(a) has already been disposed of.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Hiralal Bharati, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11 June 2026 issued by the Charity Commissioner, which rejected his application to intervene under Section 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, in Application No.102 of 2024 filed under Section 36(1)(a) of the same Act. The main application (No.102 of 2024) had already been dismissed by the Charity Commissioner, and the petitioner sought to contest certain observations made in the rejection order. The Court examined whether the petitioner could be permitted to intervene in a proceeding that had already been disposed of. It held that since the substantive proceeding was concluded, there was no remaining issue for the Court to entertain regarding intervention. Consequently, the Court clarified that the petition was limited to the question of intervention, found no surviving matter, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner could be permitted to intervene under Section 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, in a proceeding that has already been dismissed under Section 36(1)(a).
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 — s. 36(1)(a), 73A
Subjects
- intervention
- public trusts
- Charity Commissioner
- writ petition
- Section 73A
- Section 36
- dismissal
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date: 24-WP-3684-26.DOC
2026.08.20
16:10:08
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3684 OF 2026
Rajesh Hiralal Bharati ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Sarthak Utangale i/b Utangale & Co. for Petitioner.
Ms Madhura Deshmukh for State/Respondent No.1.
-----------
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 18th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 11th June 2026
passed by the Learned Charity Commissioner, whereby an application
preferred by the Petitioner under Section 73A of the Maharashtra Public
Trusts Act 1950 came to be rejected.
3. By the said application, the Petitioner sought impleadment as a
party in Application No.102 of 2024 filed under Section 36(1)(a) of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said main
Application No.102 of 2024 was eventually dismissed by the Learned
Meera Jadhav 1/2
24-WP-3684-26.DOC
Charity Commissioner. However, the Petitioner is aggrieved by certain
observations made in the impugned order.
5. Evidently, the intervention was sought, under Section 73A of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, in the substantive proceedings
under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, being
Application No.102 of 2024, which eventually came to be dismissed.
6. It would thus be suffice to clarify that the observations contained
in the impugned order shall be confined to the determination of the
question as to whether the Applicant /Petitioner was to be permitted to
intervene in the said proceeding. Since the main proceeding has already
been disposed of, nothing survives for consideration in the present
Petition.
7. Thus, subject to the aforesaid clarification, the Petition stands
disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Meera Jadhav 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.