Bombay High Court

KHANDU APPA PUJARIversusTHE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER KOLHAPUR REGION AND OTHERS

Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH

Holding

The petition is dismissed; the order directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority is upheld.

Summary

The petitioner challenged an order dated 16 November 2021 issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur, which had remitted a revision application concerning a scheme for the Shri Brahmnat Deo Dorli Trust to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, directing the petitioner to file a miscellaneous application. The petitioner alleged that the order was arbitrary, violated natural justice, and that the Commissioner should have decided the merits instead of remitting the matter. The High Court examined whether the petitioner had a valid reason for the delay in approaching the Court and noted that the petitioner had been given a clear opportunity to approach the concerned authority. Finding no cogent explanation for the delay and deeming the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 unnecessary, the Court dismissed the petition. The order also clarified that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authority as directed in the 2021 order.

Issues considered

The Joint Charity Commissioner erred in remitting the revision application instead of deciding its merits.
Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition under Article 227 given the petitioner’s delay and availability of an alternative remedy.
The order under challenge violates principles of natural justice.

Legislation cited

Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 — s. 50A(1)
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 — s. 70A

Subjects

public trust
scheme
revision application
natural justice
Article 227
jurisdiction
delay
charitable trust management

Judgment

1
3-WP-897-2026 (C).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 897 OF 2026

Khandu Appa Pujari ....Petitioner
VERSUS
The Joint Charity Commissioner
Kolhapur Region And Others ....Respondents
...
Mr. Suryajeet Chavan a/w Mr. Ajinkya Walekar, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar AGP for the Respondents-State.
...

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH 2026.
P.C.

1. The present petition raises a challenge to the order dated

16.11.2021 rendered by the Respondent No.1 - learned Joint Charity

Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur in Revision Application No.

44 of 2018 under Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act,

1950, arising out of order dated 18.10.2000 rendered by Respondent

No.2 - learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli below Exhibit-

27 in Inquiry No.769 of 2000 under Section 50A(1) of the Bombay

Public Trust Act, 1950.

2. Initially, an application under Section 50A(1) of the Bombay

Public Trusts Act, 1950 was filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 for

Digitally
signed by
framing of the scheme for the better and efficient management of the
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2026.03.17
10:32:01
+0530

Sajakali Jamadar
2
3-WP-897-2026 (C).DOC

trust known and designated as ‘Shri Brahmnat Deo Dorli, Tal Jat, Dist.

Sangli, Registered at At A-882, Sangli’ (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Trust’). It was contended that there were no rules and regulations for

the management of the Trust and that there was ongoing

mismanagement by the existing trustees.

3. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli/

Respondent No.2, after due inquiry and hearing, framed and settled

the scheme proposed by the aforesaid respondents vide order dated

18.10.2000.

4. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner No. 1 along with

Respondent Nos. 19 and 20 herein presented Revision Application No.

44 of 2018 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur,

contending that the order rendered by Respondent No. 2 was bad in

law. It was further submitted that since the mode of succession in

relation to the Trust was hereditary, Respondent No. 2 could not have

appointed other trustees. Furthermore, other issues regarding the

technicality and eligibility of the appointed trustees were challenged

in the said revision application.

5. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur/Respondent No.

1, after considering all aspects, partly allowed the said revision

application and directed the Petitioner to approach the concerned

authority by filing a Miscellaneous application and raise a challenge

Sajakali Jamadar
3
3-WP-897-2026 (C).DOC

to the said scheme. Resultantly, the present petition has been

presented under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order

under challenge is arbitrary and against the principles of natural

justice. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1 ought to have

decided the matter on merits rather than directing the Petitioner to

approach Respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1./appellate authority

has failed to exercise jurisdiction while passing the order under

challenge, instead of deciding the issue, erred in remitting the matter

and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned A.G.P. for the Respondents – State has supported

the order under challenge and submitted that the scheme framed is in

the larger interest of the Trust as well as the public.

8. Having heard the submissions from the respective sides and

upon perusal of the records, indicate that the order under challenge

was rendered in the year 2021, wherein the Petitioner was explicitly

directed to approach the concerned authority by filing a

Miscellaneous application and raise a challenge to the said scheme.

9. When confronted with regards the compliance of the said

direction coupled with the aspect of delay in approaching this Court,

the learned counsel for the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any

sufficient and cogent reasons for the same.
Sajakali Jamadar
4
3-WP-897-2026 (C).DOC

10. In view of the aforesaid aspects and considering that the

Petitioner has been vested with the opportunity and liberty to

approach the concerned authority, as well as the unexplained delay in

filing this Petition, I am not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary

jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India.

11. In that view of the matter, further consideration of the

petition is not warranted. Resultantly, Petition is dismissed.

12. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the

Petitioner from approaching the concerned Court pursuant to Clause-

2 of the order dated 16.11.2021 rendered by Respondent No.1 -

learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur.

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

Sajakali Jamadar

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…