Bombay High Court: In a case revolving around the question of whether resolutions passed by trustees of a public charitable trust for change of address and appointment of new trustees could be upheld despite objections, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., dismissed the writ petitions filed by the trustees. The Court stated that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had accepted the change reports without following due process of law, without proper enquiry, and without notice to all concerned, and consequently affirming the Joint Charity Commissioner’s orders setting aside the approvals.
Background:
The case arose from disputes concerning the management of a public charitable trust, Juggilal Hanumanbux Podar Charitable Trust (‘Trust’), constituted under a deed dated 17-06-1975. Over time, vacancies arose in its trusteeship owing to death and incapacity of certain trustees. In 2018, Change Reports were filed seeking deletion of a trustee’s name on account of medical incapacity, appointment of a new trustee, and change of the trust’s registered address. These reports were accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner through twin orders dated 28-08-2018.
In 2020, revision applications were instituted challenging the validity of the orders. The Joint Charity Commissioner, upon consideration, allowed the revisions and set aside the Assistant Charity Commissioner’s orders. The petitioners maintained that the resolutions had been validly passed with quorum as prescribed under the trust deed, contended that the respondent had no locus standi since he was neither trustee nor beneficiary, and argued that the revision applications were barred by delay and laches.
Conversely, the respondent submitted that locus standi was immaterial under Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (‘MPT Act’), as the Charity Commissioner’s revisional powers could be exercised even suo motu. It was urged that the respondent fell within the statutory definitions of “beneficiary” and “person having interest,” and that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had failed to conduct the mandatory enquiry under Section 22 of the MPT Act, failed to issue notices, and had relied merely on unsubstantiated assertions regarding incapacity of trustees. The intervenor further highlighted contradictions in pleadings, pointing out that one trustee was mentally unfit at the time the resolutions were passed, thereby undermining the claim of quorum.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had passed orders without giving any reasons, merely stating that the change was legal and valid. The Court noted that Section 22 of MPT Act envisages a detailed and impartial enquiry, including issuance of public notice and hearing of objections, which was not conducted in the case.
The Court observed that the quorum claimed by petitioners was under a cloud, as pleadings in other proceedings established that one trustee was medically unfit during the period when resolutions were passed, and therefore only one trustee was fit and present. The Court highlighted that despite knowledge of incapacity, no notice was given to the legal guardian of the trustee.
The Court further noted that the medical certificate relied upon was dated 31-01-2017, whereas the resolutions were passed in March 2018 and orders were made in August 2018, raising clear doubt as to why no enquiry was made at the time of acceptance of the change reports. The Court stressed that the Assistant Charity Commissioner miserably failed to follow due process of law and gave no reasons in his orders.
The Court observed that petitioners surreptitiously attempted to usurp the entire control of the Trust for their family’s benefit to the exclusion of the will and intention of the original trustees. Consequently, the findings of the Joint Charity Commissioner were upheld, and both writ petitions were dismissed.
[Narendra Ramprakash Podar v. Pragnesh Narayan Podar, Writ Petition No. 15699 of 2022, decided on 01-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Kaustubh Thipsay a/w. Pooja Thakkar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Prathamesh Kamat a/w. Kayush Zaiwalla, Ms. Samruddhi Warang and Abheek Melwani, Advocates i/by Ravi Kant Purohit, Advocates, Y. D. Patil, AGP, S. H. Kankal, AGP, Rohan Cama a/w Kyrus Modi, Advocates i/by Esha Joshi, Advocates