DNYANGANGA MADHYAMIK VIDYALAY AND ORS.versusMAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN VIKAS MANDAL AND ORS.

                                                                  1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 9440 OF 2005
                      1. Dnyanganga Madhyamik Vidyalay,
NAVNATH
                      Manikkhamb, Post Mundhegaon
SITARAM               Tal. Igatpuri, District Nashik
WAGHMARE
                      Through its Head Master.
Digitally signed by
NAVNATH SITARAM
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.08.31
20:33:53 +0530        2. Dnyanganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
                      Manikkhamb, Post Mundhegaon.
                      Tal. Igatpuri, District Nashik,
                      Through its Trustees.

                      a. Shri Ramdas Pundalik Chavan, President

                      b. Shri. Shankar Gangaram Joshi,

                      Deputy Chairman.

                      c. Shri Ratan Chahadu Chavan, Secretary.

                      d. Shri Shantaram Malhari Pagare, Member.

                      e. Shri Bhagirath Ramchandra Chavan, Member.

                      f. Shri Bandu Punjaji Chavan, Member.

                      g. Shri Devram Tukaram Layare, Member.

                      i. Shri Ramchandra Hari Chavan, Member.

                      j. Shri Bapu Sitaram Pawar, Member.               ...Petitioners

                                    Versus
                      1.Maharashtra Shikshan Vikas Mandal,
                      Manikkhamb, Post Mundhegaon,
                      Tal.Igatpuri, District Nashik.

                      2. Shri Ramdas Adole,
                      Ex Chairman,
                      Dnyanganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal


                      Navnath Waghmare                                                     1
                                              1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



R/o. Manik Khamb, Post: Mundhegaon,
Tal. Igatpuri, District: Nashik.

3. The Joint Charity Commissioner,
Nashik Region, Nashik.

4. The State of Maharashtra.                        ...Respondents

                                   WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1178 OF 2006
                            (for party addition)

Shri. Kisan Devram Gangurde and Ors.           ...Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Dnyanganga Madhyamik Vidyalay And Ors.         ... Petitioners
            Versus
Maharashtra Shikshan Vikas Mandal and Ors.     ...Respondents
                               WITH
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 3459 OF 2006

1. Bhagirath Ramchandra Chavan, Member
Age About : 52 Years,
R/o. Manikkhamb, Post: Mundhegaon, Tal.
Igatpuri, District: Nashik.


2. Devram Tukaram Layare,
Member, Age: 70 Years,
R/o. Manikkhamb, Post: Mundhegaon, Tal.
Igatpuri, District: Nashik.
                                                    ... Petitioners
           Versus
1.Maharashtra Shikshan Vikas Mandal,
Manikkhamb, Post Mundhegaon,
Tal.Igatpuri, District Nashik

2. Shri Ramdas Adole


Navnath Waghmare                                                       2
                                            1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



Ex Chairman,
Dnyanganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
R/o. Manikkhamb, Post : Mundhegaon,
Tal. Igatpuri, District: Nashik.

3. The Joint Charity Commissioner
Nashik Region, Nashik.

4. Education Officer (SEC) Z.P. Nashik
Zilla Parishad Office at Nashik, Nashik.

5. Shri Shankar Gangaram Joshi
Manikkhamb, Igatpuri.

6. Ratna Chahadu Chavan
Secretary, Dyanganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Manikkhamb, Igatpure.

7. Shantaram Malhari Pagare
Manikkhamb, Igatpuri.

8. Bandu Punjaji Chavan
Manikkhamb, Igatpuri.

9. Ramchandra Hari Chavan
Manikkhamb, Igatpuri.

10. Ramdas Pundalik Chavan
Chairman, Dyanganga Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal
Manikkhamb, Igatpuri.

11) Bapu Sitaram Pawar
Manikkhamb, Igatpuri.

12. Dnyanganga Madhyamik Vidyalaya



Navnath Waghmare                                                     3
                                                  1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



Manikkhamb, Post Mundhe gaon
Tal: Ingatpuri, District Nashik.

13. Dnyanganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Manikkhamb, Post Mundhe gaon
Tal: Ingatpuri, District Nashik.

14. The State of Maharashtra.                           ...Respondents

                                   ****
Mr. Kayval P. Shah i/b Mr. Praful B. Shah for the Petitioner in
WP/9440/2005.
Ms. Swati Sawant a/w Ms. Swati Panjwani i/b Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade
for the Petitioner in WP/3459/2006.
Mr. Nikhil Pujari a/w Mr. Bipin Singh & Ms. Gauri Kamat i/b Mr. P.N.
Joshi for the Respondent No.1 in both Petitions.
Mr. V.M. Parashurami for the Respondent Nos.7 & 11 in WP/3459/2006.
Ms. Sangeeta Salvi for the Applicant in CAW/1178/2006.
Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/9440/2005.
Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/3459/2006

                            CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                              DATE : 29th AUGUST, 2026
JUDGMENT :

1.          Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2.          Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9440 of 2005 (Educational Trust and
a faction of trustees) are challenging the order dated 15.10.2005 passed
by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik in
Misc. Application No. 29 of 2003. By the said impugned order,
concerned authority granted no objection for transfer of the
management of the school in question (Dnyanganga Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Manikkhamb, Post Mundhegaon, Tal. Igatpuri, District:


Navnath Waghmare                                                           4
                                                      1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



Nashik, (‘the said School’ for short) on joint application of Respondent
No. 1 Trust and Respondent No. 2 (Ex-chairman of Petitioner Trust).

3.          The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3459 of 2006 are two
supporting trustees of the Petitioner No. 2 Trust, in above Writ Petition
No. 9440 of 2005, challenging the same impugned order.

                                  BRIEF BACKGROUND

4.          Petitioners’ case in short is as under.

4.1. That Petitioner No.2 Dnyanganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is an
educational institute registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act,
1950 (as it then was) (the 'said Act' for short) and Societies
Registration Act, 1860 which was running Petitioner No. 1 school in
question. The said school was run on unaided basis.

4.2. That Respondent No.2 - Adole was the earlier chairman of
Petitioner-Trust who, during his tenure, had removed certain teachers
and had issued letters and carried out activities detrimental to the
welfare of the institute. That because of such conduct, the other
Trustees of Petitioner-Trust removed him by holding meeting of
Management Committee and by filing change report.

4.3. That Mr. Adole in collusion with a Clerk of the school (Shri. Bapu
Sitaram Pawar) took the school records and prepared fabricated
Resolution dated 10.01.2003, forging signatures of the Committee
Members, resolving to transfer the management of the said School.
That Respondent No.1-Trust passed a Resolution dated 17.01.2003,
giving consent for taking over management of the said School. That an
Agreement dated 23.01.2003 came to be entered into between Mr.
Adole of Respondent No.1-Trust by which the management of the
school in question was agreed to be transferred on certain terms and

Navnath Waghmare                                                               5
                                                 1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



conditions.

4.4. That since Mr. Adole had influence over the staff of the school, he
managed to get signatures of the teaching and non-teaching staff on
23.01.2003 giving no objection/consent to transfer of management in
favour of the Respondent No.1-Trust.

4.5. That when the Petitioners came to know about the missing
records, they lodged a police complaint against the said Clerk and Mr.
Adole.

4.6. That when they came to know about present proceedings seeking
NOC, for transfer they objected to such transfer by letter dated
06.06.2003, pointing out that Mr. Adole has been removed from
Charimanship and new Chairman has been appointed and further
contending that Mr. Adole has prepared false and fabricated documents
with forged signatures.

5.          Learned Joint Charity Commissioner after hearing all
concerned, passed the impugned order granting no objection certificate
for transfer of the management of the said School in favour of
Respondent No.1-Trust subject to the condition that service conditions
of the teaching and non-teaching staff will not be affected.

6.          In these circumstances, the above petitions are filed which
were admitted. Initially, on 17.07.2006, ad-interim order was passed in
Writ Petition No. 3459 of 2006. However, after hearing all concerned,
by a reasoned common order dated 13.06.2007, this Court came to the
conclusion that ad-interim order granted is not required to be continued
and it was vacated. However, it was clarified that the transfer of the
school management would be subject to the result of the petitions.




Navnath Waghmare                                                          6
                                                  1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



                                     SUBMISSIONS

7.          Mr. Shah learned counsel for the Petitioners (in Writ Petition
No. 9440 of 2005) submitted as under. That Respondent No. 2 Ex-
Chairman was removed. That he had forged the resolution and Trust
was not in financially weak condition as contented. That NOC to
transfer the school from the staff members was obtained using
influence. That criminal case was filed against the concerned clerk, who
was having custody of the school record and who colluded with
Respondent No. 2 for fabricating the Resolution. That Joint Charity
Commissioner has no jurisdiction and ‘no objection certificate’ is not
required under any provision of law. That under clause 7 of the
Agreement for Transfer of Management, assets of the Trust (school
building) has been dealt with and therefore, there is breach of Section
36 of the said Act requiring permission. He submitted that the
application seeking NOC from Joint Charity Commissioner does not
make reference to any legal provision and as such the Joint Charity
Commissioner has passed order without legal requirement. That Section
3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Transfer of
Management) Act, 1971 (‘the Act of 1971’ for short) was not followed
under which the State Government has power to issue directions and
carry out investigation. That Joint Charity Commissioner was not
competent to issue NOC. That the Joint Charity Commissioner has not
dealt with the aspect of transfer of trust-asset by the Management. That
existence of the Trust ought to have been verified. That therefore, the
very basis of impugned order is illegal.
8.                 Ms. Sawant, learned counsel for Petitioners (in Writ
Petition No. 3459 of 2006) adopted and supported the arguments of Mr.
Shah and further submitted that she is disputing the signatures of



Navnath Waghmare                                                           7
                                                 1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



Petitioners on documents created by Mr. Adole. She submitted that the
trust resolution was without their consent.

9.          On the other hand Mr. Pujari, learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 (transferee-trust) submitted as under. That at the
time of transfer, the said School was not receiving any grant-in-aid and
there was no requirement for application under the Act of 1971. That
the signature disputes cannot be considered in the writ jurisdiction.
That as on today, only two Trustees of Petitioner Trust are alive and the
present dispute is preceded by dispute amongst the Trustees which has
resulted in filing of complaint etc., which is not the subject matter. He
submitted that the staff of the school is happy and smoothly working.
That the Petitioner Trust had never constructed the school building and
therefore, there is no question of trust-assets being involved requiring
any permission under Section 36 of the said Act. He further submitted
that the Respondent-Trust has in fact constructed rooms for school. He
invited Court's attention to clause 7 of the Transfer Agreement
contending that the Petitioner-Trust had not built the school building.

10.         Mr. Parashurami, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos. 7 and 11 in Writ Petition No. 3459 of 2006 submitted that he is
appearing for two Trustees of Petitioner-Trust, who are supporting the
impugned order. He submitted that NOC was applied by way of
abundant precaution because Petitioner-Trust had resolved to transfer
the management to new Trust. That since the school was not having
grant-in-aid at the relevant time, non-compliance with Act of 1971 is
not fatal. That as on today, there are 145 students studying in 8th to
10th standard in an adivasi area and currently the said School has been
running in 8 rooms, with 1 Headmaster, 4 teachers and 1 non-teaching
staff smoothly. He submitted that the present petitions are nothing but



Navnath Waghmare                                                          8
                                                   1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



an effort by disputing Trustees to disturb smooth running of the said
School. He submitted that impugned order is a reasoned order requiring
no interference. Civil Application No. 1178 of 2006 is filed by school
staff opposing petitions and requesting them to make parties.

                               REASONS AND CONCLUSION

11.                I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
records.

12.         After going through the records and on hearing learned
counsel for the parties, clear picture emerging is that the Petitioner-
Trust had internal disputes amongst the Trustees which has resulted
into Police complaint and resolutions as well as change reports
concerning Respondent No. 2 who was Ex-Chairman.

13.         It has come on record that by order in Change Report No. 196
of 2000, the Deputy Charity Commissioner has refused to accept the
Change Report in respect of alleged removal of Respondent No. 2 Mr.
Adole and inclusion of his rival Mr. Chavan (Petitioner No. 2(i) in Writ
Petition No. 9440 of 2005).

14.         So far as the aspect of Trust’s property being transferred is
concerned, Clause 7 of the Transfer Agreement executed between
Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 clearly states that Petitioner-
Trust (Dnyanganga) has not taken/purchased new building. However, a
building ‘belonging to local village’ is being used for the school and such
user shall continue. It is also stated that Petitioner-Trust (Dnyanganga)
shall have no concern in that respect. Therefore, it is clear that under
the Transfer Agreement, no asset of the Trust was transferred.

15.         Mr. Shah learned Counsel for the Petitioner has fairly
conceded that Schedule -I is not available with him or produced on

Navnath Waghmare                                                            9
                                                1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



record to even prima facie show that what are trust properties.

16.         It has come on record by additional affidavit filed by the
Secretary of the Respondent No. 1 Trust that the management of the
said School has been transferred to Respondent No. 1 since year 2006
and after receiving the charge, Respondent No. 1 Trust has made several
changes by constructing new rooms/building for the purpose of
conducting school and has also made changes required for smooth
functioning of the Trust. It is stated that when the transfer took place,
the situation of the school was absolutely critical and students were not
having classrooms for taking education and entire functioning took
place on open ground. It is stated that Respondent No. 1 Trust has
constructed school building in 2013-14. It is stated that Respondent
No.1 Trust is running as many as 21 schools effectively and the school is
running smoothly and no interference is required.

17.         Record further shows that by a reasoned order dated
13.06.2007 and after noting that the concerned Education Officer has
granted its NOC/permission for the transfer under letter dated
03.05.2006, this Court has vacated the interim stay and since then the
school is being run by Respondent No. 1.

18.         It is true that the Act of 1971 provides for transfer of
management of educational institutions and there is a power with the
Government to cause investigation and issue directions in that regard. It
is important to note that this objection about non-compliance with
provisions of Act of 1971 was not argued before the Joint Charity
Commissioner. Also, no provision is pointed out from the Act of 1971
which can be said to be fatal if such directions are not sought from the
Government in case of un-aided schools. As noted earlier, the transfer
has has been granted permission/NOC by the concerned Education

Navnath Waghmare                                                         10
                                                   1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



Officer.

19.         So far as the contention that trust-resolution is fabricated and
there is dispute about signatures, is concerned, it is not possible to take
cognizance thereof for the first time in writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to
observe that no record from the Charity Commissioner's office accepting
change report in favour of the Petitioners, is produced on record.

20.         The document of NOC dated 23.01.2003 signed by the
teaching and non-teaching staff including the headmaster, is not
disputed and therefore apparently the transfer of management was
effected with the consent and permission of the staff.

21.         No material is placed on record to indicate any action taken
pursuant to criminal complaint lodged against the peon.

22.                Viewed in the light of what is observed above, when the
impugned order is perused, it is seen that the Joint Charity
Commissioner has considered certified copy of order in Change Report
No. 196 of 2000 rejecting it. He has also considered the reason for
rejecting such Change Report that in cross-examination, one of the
witnesses and objectors requested that the inquiry be dropped. He has
further considered that in response to affidavits filed by objectors, five
more Trustees have filed affidavit in support of the application for
Transfer of Management, stating that the criminal complaint lodged
about alleged missing school record was an afterthought and in fact the
original objectors had tried to take the record in possession illegally, for
which the school principal had lodged complaint. He has further
considered that Change Report filed by Petitioner No. 2(c), Mr. Ratan
Chahadu Chavan is false and the managing body was in existence in the
year 1994-1995 which is continued for further period of 3 years. He has



Navnath Waghmare                                                            11
                                                1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



considered joint request of the employees of the said School who had
prayed for transfer of management. The police complaint against
Petitioner Mr. Ratan Sahadu Chavan and Shankar Gangaram Joshi,
alleging threats to the staff members, is also considered. Thus, on
consideration of the material, the Joint Charity Commissioner has held
on preponderance of probability that resolution for transfer of
management was passed by the Trustee board at the relevant time after
due discussion with teaching and non-teaching staff. On finding that
there is no legal impediment, no-objection is granted, subject to
condition that service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff will
not be affected.

23.         Since it was a transfer of management from one trust to
another, it appears that the transferee trust has applied for seeking no
objection from the Joint Charity Commissioner by way of precaution. It
has already come on record that the transfer has been duly approved by
the concerned Education Officer. It has also come on record that the
school is presently running without any complaints from the teaching as
well as non-teaching staff. Therefore, the argument of jurisdiction of
Joint Charity Commissioner or requirement of such NOC under law is
not found sufficient for this Court to interfere in limited writ
jurisdiction.

24.         The judgment relied upon by the Petitioners in the case of
Jeejau Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
2011 (4) Mh.LJ 352 makes a reference in Paragraph No.18 that
No objection certificate from the office of the Charity Commissioner
should not be obtained. In the said judgment, this Court was
considering a circular dated 08.12.2005 issued by Deputy Director of
Education providing that in the matter of transfer/change of


Navnath Waghmare                                                         12
                                                  1-WP- 9440- 2005 (J) c2. doc



management of school, assets and liabilities, employees of the school, it
is purely a matter of privity of contract between transferor and
transferee society. This Court held that such provision making the
transfer of management purely a matter of contract between two
societies is not correct and where public money is involved, the transfer
of management cannot be a private affair. It is important to note in the
present case at hand, that when the transfer of management took place
under Agreement of 2003, admittedly the school was un-aided school
and as such, the aspect of Respondent Trust not seeking directions
under the Act of 1971 cannot be said to be fatal. In such peculiar facts,
the said Judgment will not advance the case of the Petitioners.

25.         Overall, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Joint
Charity Commissioner.

26.                In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the
reasons indicated above, impugned order does not suffer from any
perversity. The view taken is the most probable view. There is no reason
to interfere.

27.         Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No order as to costs. Pending Civil Application is disposed of in above
terms.

28.         All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.



                                               (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                           13