BHARTIYA KALA PRASARANI SABHA THROU.ITS SEC. PUSHKRAJ BHALCHANDRA PATHAKversusLD. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER IV PUNE AND ANR

                                                                              31-WP-9757-2024.doc



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          Digitally
          signed by
          CHAITANYA
CHAITANYA ASHOK
ASHOK
JADHAV
          JADHAV
          Date:
                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 9757 OF 2024
          2026.03.07
          11:27:10
          +0530


                        Bhartiya Kala Prasarani Sabha Throu.
                        Its Sec. PushkrajBhalchandra Pathak                       …Petitioner
                                   Versus
                        Ld. Assistant Charity Commissioner IV Pune And            …Respondents
                        Anr.



                            Mr. Atul Damle a/w Adv. Neha Wadekar, for the Petitioner.

                            Mr. B. B. Dahiphale, A.G.P., for the State.

                            Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare a/w Adv. Sandesh V. Kate, for
                            Respondent No.2.


                                             CORAM        : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
                                             DATE         : MARCH 4, 2026

                       ORDER :

                       1.            The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated May 17,

                       2024, by which the Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has

                       expressed the view that each of the Petitioners, as well as the two

                       Respondents has questioned the locus of the other, and that the

                       respective applications filed by them be taken on record. The same

                       would be considered concurrently along with the hearing of the original

                       Application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the maintainability of

                       which is challenged by the Petitioner.
                                                          Page 1 of 4
                                                         March 4, 2026
                       Chaitanya
                                                        31-WP-9757-2024.doc



2.          On hearing the parties, it is apparent that the fundamental

grievance of the Petitioner is that the two Respondents were not

members of the Trust as of March 1, 2018. However, it is seen that the

application has been filed on August 23, 2018, by the Respondents,

providing a list of members from whom seven individuals are sought to

be appointed as trustees in the Application. It is also common ground

that the two Respondents had been removed from their positions as

trustees on October 17, 2018, i.e., after the Application was filed.


3.          However, the Petitioner would point to judgement by the

Learned Single Judge of this Court, passed on June 9, 2020, upholding

the approval by the Charity Commissioner of a members’ list which did

not contain the names of the two Respondents. A Learned Single Judge

dealt with the challenge in Writ Petition No. 7170 of 2019 and Writ

Petition (St) No. 20906 of 2019 and did not interfere with the approved

list of members, which did not contain the names of the two

Respondents as members.


4.          Be that as it may, while that list was dated March 1, 2018, the

two Respondents had continued as trustees until October 17, 2018,

when they were removed in exercise of powers under Section 41D. It is



                                 Page 2 of 4
                                March 4, 2026
Chaitanya
                                                        31-WP-9757-2024.doc



also common ground that such removal is itself the subject matter of a

stay order, in the First Appeal filed in the matter.


5.          In these circumstances, when one examines the Impugned

Order, what is apparent is that the Learned Assistant Charity

Commissioner has granted himself time to examine mixed questions of

fact that are presented by the parties keeping all objections of the rival

parties open for adjudication and has decided to hear the same

concurrently.


6.          By itself, in my view this does not call for interference. It is

however made clear that the Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner

would need to deal with the Petitioner’s specific contention that the

removal of the Respondents from the basic membership list as of March

1, 2018, which has been upheld by the Learned Single Judge in the

judgement dated June 9, 2020, should be appropriately considered in

the course of such concurrent examination of the competing

Applications.


7.          With the aforesaid directions, and with no other interference

in the Impugned Order, the Petition is disposed of.




                                 Page 3 of 4
                                March 4, 2026
Chaitanya
                                                      31-WP-9757-2024.doc



8.          All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall

be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s

website.


                          [ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]




                                Page 4 of 4
                               March 4, 2026
Chaitanya