[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mr. Narendra Ramprakash Podar And Ors vs Mr. Pragnesh Narayan Podar And Anr on 1 December, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:52202
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15699 OF 2022
Narendra Ramprakash Podar And Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Pragnesh Narayan Podar And Anr. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14797 OF 2023
Narendra Ramprakash Podar And Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Pragnesh Narayan Podar And Anr. Respondents
....................
Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay a/w. Ms. Pooja Thakkar, Advocates for
Petitioners in both Writ Petitions.
Mr. Prathamesh Kamat a/w. Mr. Kayush Zaiwalla, Ms. Samruddhi
Warang and Mr. Abheek Melwani, Advocates i/by Ravi Kant
Purohit, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.15699
of 2022.
Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition
No.14797 of 2023.
Mr. Rohan Cama a/w Mr. Kyrus Modi, Advocates i/by Ms. Esha
Joshi, Advocates for Intervenor.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 01, 2025.
ORAL JUDGEMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Thipsay, learned Advocate for Petitioners in both
Writ Petitions; Mr. Kamat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr.
Patil, learned AGP for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.15699 of
2022; Mr. Kankal, learned AGP Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition
No.14797 of 2023 and Mr. Cama, learned Advocate appears for wife of
Narayan Tejpal Podar - Intervenor.
1 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
2. Writ Petition No.15699 of 2022 is filed for challenging the
impugned judgement and order dated 02.02.2022 allowing Revision
Application No.112 of 2020 and setting aside of order dated
28.08.2018 passed in Change Report No.3993 of 2018 for change of
address of the Trust from 405, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 to
C/o Narendra Ramprakash Podar, 573, 1st floor, J.S.S. Road Chira
Bazar, Mumbai - 400002.
3. Second Writ Petition No.14797 of 2023 is filed for
challenging the impugned judgement 02.02.2022 allowing Revision
Application No. 111 of 2020 and setting aside of order dated
28.08.2018 passed in Change Report No.3992 of 2018 accepting the
appointment of Petitioner No.2 as Trustee of the said Trust. As facts
and parties in both the Writ Petitions are the same, they are disposed
of by this common judgement and order.
4. The relevant facts necessary for determining both the Writ
Petitions are as under:-
4.1. Juggilal Hanumanbux Podar Charitable Trust (for short
'Trust") is a Public Charitable Trust which came into existence vide
Trust Deed dated 17.06.1975. It is Petitioners' case that Petitioner No.1
alongwith his father Mr. Ramprakash Juggilal Podar, Tejpal Juggilal
Podar (settlor of the Trust) and Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar were the
original Trustees of the Trust. Today all 5 Petitioners of Petitioner No.1
2 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
family are the present Trustees of the Trust. That is under challenge.
The Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected the challenge. The Joint
Charity Commissioner has set aside the orders of Assistant Charity
Commissioner and upheld the challenge. Hence the present Petitions.
These Petitions are expedited for hearing by the Supreme Court. Hence
by consent they are heard finally.
4.2. It is Petitioners' case that according to Clause 13 of the Trust
Deed there shall be no less than 2 Trustees and not more than 5
Trustees to administer the Trust which would form the quorum as well
for appointment of new Trustees. However when vacancy arises, same
is required to be filled in by surviving and/or continuing Trustees as
per details set out in Clause 23 of the Trust Deed.
4.3. It is Petitioners' case that Mr. Tejpal Podar expired on
26.01.2014 leaving behind him 3 Trustees i.e. Petitioner No.1, Mr.
Ramprakash Juggilal Podar (father of Petitioner No. 1) and Mr.
Narayan Tejpal Podar. However Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar i.e. father of
Respondent No.1 went in coma in the year 2016 and therefore became
incapable of discharging his duties as Trustee. Hence, Change Report
No.3992 of 2018 was filed for deleting Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar's
name as Trustee after passing of Resolution in Board of Trustees'
Meeting held on 15.03.2018. It is Petitioners' case that in the said
Meeting it was decided to change the address of the Trust from 405,
Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 to C/o Narendra Ramprakash
3 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
Podar, 573, 1st floor, J.S.S. Road, Chira Bazar, Mumbai - 400002,
therefore Change Report No.3993 of 2018 was filed for recording the
change of address of the Trust. It is Petitioners' case that this meeting
was attended by Petitioner No. 1 and his father Ramprakash J. Podar
forming the quorum of 2 Trustees and aforesaid two decisions were
taken. Accordingly Trust filed two change reports.
4.4. Twin orders dated 28.08.2018 were passed by Assistant
Charity Commissioner whereby Change Report No.3992 of 2018 for
deletion of name of Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar and appointment of
Petitioner No.2 as Trustee and Change Report No.3993 of 2018 for
change of address of Trust were allowed.
4.5. In the interregnum, Respondent No.1 filed Application
No.691 of 2018 under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts
Act, 1950 (for short ("MPT Act") against the surviving Trustees i.e.
Petitioner No.1 and his father Mr. Ramprakash Juggilal Podar to
remove them from Trusteeship and for interim relief. It is Petitioners'
case that after hearing parties, Joint Charity Commissioner vide order
dated 11.09.2018 rejected interim relief but later Respondent No.1 did
not prosecute Application No.691 of 2018 any further. Hence, Joint
Charity Commissioner vide order dated 27.02.2019 dismissed the said
Application.
4 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
4.6. It is Petitioner's case that after a period of more than 2 years
of passing of the twin orders dated 28.08.2018, Respondent No.1 filed
Revision Application Nos.111 of 2020 and 112 of 2020 to challenge
the said orders dated 28.08.2018 passed in Change Report Nos.3992 of
2018 and 3993 of 2018.
4.7. Further, Change Report No.4887 of 2021 was filed by
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 which was allowed by order dated 20.12.2021
passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner. Resultantly, Petitioner
Nos.3 to 5 were appointed as Trustees and are therefore impleaded as
Petitioners in the present case.
4.8. By two separate judgements dated 02.02.2022, the Joint
Charity Commissioner allowed Revision Application Nos.111 of 2020
and 112 of 2020 and set aside the twin orders dated 28.08.2018
passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner.
4.9. Hence, being aggrieved, Petitioners have filed the present
Writ Petitions.
5. Mr. Thipsay, learned Advocate for Petitioners would submit
that Respondent No.1 lacks locus standi to file the Revision
Applications as he is merely heir of Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar i.e. the
original trustee and hence has no rights whatsoever to manage the
Trust Property. He would submit that Respondent No.1 is neither a
Trustee nor beneficiary of the said Trust, hence, does not have locus to
5 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
challenge orders passed in the said Change Reports pertaining to the
Trust.
5.1. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Maganlal Himatram
Barfiwala and Ors. Vs. Mridangraj Hiralal Suchak 1 wherein this Court
dealt with the aspect of "beneficiary" and "person having interest" as
defined under Sections 2(2-A) and 2(10) of MPT Act. Mr. Thipsay has
laid emphasis on paragraph No.67 of the said decision which is
reproduced below for immediate reference:-
"67. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner clearly indicates that the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner has considered the respondent as a person having
interest in the trust under section 2(10) of the MPT Act as well as the
beneficiary under section 2(2-A) of the MPT Act on the ground that he
is a member of Shri Halai Lohana Mahajan community and the
grandson of the settlor. In my view, this finding of the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner is ex-facie perverse and contrary to the
definition of "person having interest" under section 2(10)(e) of the
MPT Act and also the definition of "beneficiary" defined under section
2(2-A) of the MPT Act. The finding of the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner that considering the close relationship between the
settlor and the respondent as well as he being a member of Shri Halai
Lohana Mahajan community, the respondent was a person having
interest as required under section 41-D of the MPT Act is also ex-facie
perverse and contrary to section 41-D of the MPT Act. In my view, in
view of the definition of section 2(2-A) of the MPT Act, the definition
of "person having interest" under section 2(10)(e) has to be given a
restricted meaning. In my view, even if a person is a member of the
community, he does not automatically become a beneficiary defined
under section 2(2-A) of the MPT Act."
5.2. He would submit that quorum of the Trust which passed the
Resolutions dated 15.03.2018 for deleting the name of Mr. Narayan
Tejpal Podar as Trustee and in his place appoint Petitioner No.2 as new
Trustee and for change of address of the Trust was in accordance with
1 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 336
6 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
provisions of the Trust Deed which cannot be faulted with. He would
submit that Revision Applications filed by Respondent No.1 were after
2 years thereafter and were not maintainable despite Respondent No.1
having knowledge of all previous proceedings. He would submit that
that Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar was admittedly indisposed due to
medical reasons (in coma) since 2016 since Respondent No.1 was
appointed as his legal guardian by this Court. He would submit that as
contended by Respondent No.1 there is no provision in the Trust Deed
dated 17.06.1975 for appointment of hereditary Trustees and the issue
of appointment of new Trustee is to be strictly dealt as per the Deed by
the surviving / continuing Trustees only. He would thrust his
submission on the locus of Respondent No.1 to challenge the Change
Reports. He would submit that Respondent No.1 had no nexus with
the Trust nor was he "a person interested" hence he could never
challenge the Resolutions of the Trust or the Change Reports which
were allowed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner after due enquiry.
5.3. He would vehemently argue that Respondent No.1 was
neither an incoming or outgoing Trustee nor a person affected and
hence had no locus whatsoever to file the Revision Applications before
the Joint Charity Commissioner. He would submit that notice of
meeting of the Trustees, exhibits thereto were all annexed to the
Change Reports and none of the subsisting Trustees who formed the
quorum disputed those documents. He would therefore submit that
7 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
drawing an inference in the impugned judgement dated 02.02.2022
merely on the basis of presumption is contrary to settled legal
provisions and therefore the impugned orders are bad in law. In
support of his above submission, he has referred to and relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Subir Kumar Banerjee and Ors.
Vs. Neetu Singh and Ors.2
5.4. He would submit that Petitioners have acted solely on the
basis of clear and unambiguous clauses in the Trust Deed on the
composition of quorum for passing the Resolutions and on the aspect
of an emergent situation where one of the Trustee becomes unfit to
perform his duty as per Clause 25 of the Trust Deed. Hence, he would
submit that once Resolutions are passed with the requisite quorum no
requirement for any further notice to Respondent No.1 or any other
person remains to be given. He would submit that there is no dispute
with regard to Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar's incapacity to discharge his
duties as Trustee since he was indisposed for a long period of time
since 2016. He would submit that Revision Applications filed by
Respondent No.1 under Section 70A of MPT Act also suffer from delay
and laches as they were filed after a delay of 2 years. Hence, he would
urge the Court to quash and set aside the twin impugned judgements /
orders and allow both the Writ Petitions.
2 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 6609
8 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
6. Mr. Kamat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 in support
of the twin impugned orders would submit that the issue of locus
standi is irrelevant for the purpose of a Revision Application under
Section 70A of MPT Act. He would submit that powers to be exercised
by Charity Commissioner under Section 70A are unaffected by locus of
the Revision Applicant. He would submit that terms such as
"beneficiary" or "a person interested" which exist in Section 41D of
MPT Act are conspicuously absent in Section 70A. Hence, he would
submit that exercise of the Revisionary powers of the Charity
Commissioner can be at the instance of any party or for that matter
even suo moto if exigency exists. He would submit that the only
requirement is that the Charity Commissioner must be satisfied with
regard to the correctness of any finding or order recorded or passed by
the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in the Change Reports.
6.1. Next he would submit that Respondent No.1 in any event
squarely falls within the definition of both "beneficiary" and "person
having interest". He would rather submit that Respondent No.1
independently satisfies the requirement of locus standi to maintain
both the Revision Applications. He would lay emphasis on Section
2(10)(e) wherein it is stated that person interested in Public Trust
should either be a Trustee or beneficiary. Further he would lay
emphasis on Section 2(2-A) wherein beneficiary of a trust is defined as
a person entitled to avail benefits out of the objects of the Trust.
9 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
6.2. He would submit that on bare perusal of the Trust Deed at
page Nos.19 in both the Writ Petitions, it is sufficiently demonstrated
that the object of Trust is to provide educational relief, medical relief
and advancement to unprivileged people and not for any profitable
gains.
6.3. He would submit that the Joint Charity Commissioner has
correctly opined and returned findings that documents annexed to the
Change Reports have not been duly verified and the said Change
Reports have not been approved by the Trustees at the registered
address of the Trust which is contrary to statutory requirement.
6.4. He would submit that it is trite law that inquiry under
Section 22 is a judicial enquiry and Charity Commissioner though not a
Court is required to follow the procedure stated under the MPT Act like
the Civil Court. He would submit that neither any enquiry was
conducted nor were notices inviting objections were issued as
mandated under Section 22 of MPT Act, prior to passing of orders
accepting the Change Reports filed by Petitioner No.1 which were
entirely in favour of his immediate family members and which resulted
in usurping the control of the Trust.
6.5. With regard to delay and laches, he would submit that it is
settled law that there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for
filing Revision Application. He would submit that this is with an
intention to empower the Charity Commissioner to exercise the power
10 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
of Revision even suo motu. He would submit that Respondent No.1
was not made party to the proceedings for Change Report under
Section 22 of MPT Act and both impugned orders were passed without
notice to Respondent No.1, hence no question of delay and laches
arises in the present case. In support of his above submission, he has
referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of
Virbala K. Kewalram and Ors. Vs. Ramchand Lalchand and Ors. 3 and
Vithalrao s/o Sambhajirao Kharpade Vs. Motiram s/o Narsingrao
Birajdar and Ors.4.
6.6. Next, he would submit that apart from unsubstantiated
assertions regarding Mr. Narayan Podar's incapacity to discharge his
duties as Trustee, Petitioners have failed to produce a single document
to establish the said assertion and his condition of being in a vegetative
state. Hence, he would vehemently contend that the Assistant Charity
Commissioner ought to have initiated an enquiry and should not have
merely relied on the basis of bald assertions and state doctor's
certificate issued 20 months ago regarding the health condition of
Narayan Tejpal Podar while allowing the Change Report.
6.7. He would submit that malafide conduct of Petitioners needs
to be noticed and considered while adjudicating the present matter. He
would submit that despite being aware of the order of appointment of
Respondent No.1 as the legal guardian of Narayan Tejpal Podar, the
3 1997 (1) Mh.L.J.94
4 2010 (1) Mh.L.J.997
11 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
Petitioner No.1 deliberately refrained from issuing notice to
Respondent No.1 thereby demonstrating malafide intent to exclude
Respondents from the affairs of the Trust and usurp complete control
of the Trust.
6.8. He would submit that Joint Charity Commissioner has clearly
observed that documents annexed with the Change Report were not
examined and no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same.
Hence he would submit that the Joint Charity Commissioner has
rightly set aside the twin orders passed by the Assistant Charity
Commissioner and allowed the Revision Applications. Hence, he would
urge the Court to uphold the twin impugned orders and dismiss both
the Writ Petitions in the interest of justice.
7. Mr. Cama, learned Advocate appears for wife of Narayan
Tejpal Podar - Intervenor. He states that he is a person interested and
persuades the Court to take on record a compilation of documents
containing pleadings verified by Petitioner No. 1 in Court proceedings
earlier which would falsify the entire case of Petitioners and also prima
facie prove that the Resolutions passed by the Trust was without due
quorum and authority of law. I have allowed him to address the Court
and taken the Compilation of Documents on record. The compilation is
given to the Advocates for the parties. None of the parties / Advocates
dispute the copies of pleadings appended therein. Mr. Cama has
adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Kamat, learned Advocate for
12 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
Respondent No.1. For the sake of brevity they are not reiterated
herein. Additionally, he would submit that Ramprakash Juggilal Podar
(father of Petitioner No.1) was mentally unfit during the very period
and after the period when the Resolutions for deletion of Trustee
Narayan Podar and change the address of Trust were passed by the
Trust according Petitioner No.1's pleadings filed by him in Court on
oath. He has drawn my attention to the Written Statement dated
28.07.2017 filed by Original Defendants namely Petitioner No.1
herein) in R.A.E and R. Suit No.1087 of 2016 before the Small Causes
Court at Mumbai wherein in paragraph No. 5 he has specifically stated
that Mr. Ramprakash Podar (Petitioner No.1's father) was mentally
unfit for discharging his duties as Trustee during that very period when
the Resolutions were passed and he was not mobile. He would submit
that if that be so, then admittedly on the showing of Petitioner No.1
himself, there was no quorum on 15.03.2018 when the impugned
Resolutions were passed as on that date Petitioner No.1 would be the
lone Trustee present and available. He would submit that Petitioner
No.1's stance qua Ramprakash Podar is therefore contradictory on the
face of record. Hence, he would persuade the Court to uphold the twin
orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
8. I have heard Mr. Thipsay, learned Advocate for Petitioners in
both Writ Petitions; Mr. Kamat, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.1; Mr. Patil, learned AGP for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition
13 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
No.15699 of 2022; Mr. Kankal, learned AGP Respondent No.2 in Writ
Petition No.14797 of 2023 and Mr. Cama, learned Advocate for
Intervenor and with their able assistance perused the entire record in
both the Writ Petitions. Submissions made by the learned Advocates
for respective parties have received due consideration of the Court.
9. At the outset, it is seen that Order passed by the Charity
Commissioner on change report appended at page No. 40 of the Writ
Petition in respect of enquiry conducted under Section 22 of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is an order passed without giving any
reasons. All that is stated in the order is that Assistant Charity
Commissioner has perused the contents in the Change Report and gone
through the papers and documents below Exhibit 02 to 07 and it is
stated that change is held to be legal and valid in the interest of the
Trust and justice. This is the only reason. When a question is put to Mr.
Thipsay about reasons and adjudication of enquiry under Section 22,
he has no answer whatsoever. This question is asked because of the
documents appended to the Change Report. It is Petitioner No.1's own
case that Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar was in coma since the year 2016
and Respondent No.1 was appointed as his legal guardian by this
Court. Hence when this was to the knowledge of Petitioner No.1, there
is no answer given as to why was Respondent No.1 not given notice
regarding the Trust Meeting and the agenda thereto on behalf of
Narayan Podar. The argument of locus standi of Respondent No.1 fails
14 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
on this count alone. Sub section 2 of Section 22 states that for purpose
of verifying contents of entries or to ascertain whether any change has
occurred the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may hold an
enquiry in the prescribed manner. It also calls upon the Assistant
Charity Commissioner to pass provisional order and call for objections
to such change and if any objections are received then to hold enquiry
in the prescribed manner and record findings thereon with reasons.
The provision envisages a detailed and impartial enquiry.
10. In the present case according to the Trust Deed and as
argued by Mr. Thipsay quorum of two Trustees is required to pass the
Resolution is also under a cloud for the following reason. According to
Petitioner No. 1, he and Ramprakash Podar formed the quorum since
the third surviving Trustee namely Mr. Narayan Tejpal Podar was
medically unfit. This stand of Petitioner No. 1 about having proper
quorum to pass Resolution on 15.03.20118 is a false assertion.
Petitioner No. 1 himself has filed Written Statement in the Small
Causes Court in the eviction proceedings alluded to hereinabove while
recording the submissions of Mr. Cama and in paragraph No. 5 thereof
has categorically averred that Ramprakash Podar (Petitioner No.1's
father) was in a medically unfit condition 3 months prior to passing of
the Resolutions and for 3 months post the passing of the Resolutions.
This fact prima facie establishes that on the date of passing of
Resolutions i.e. 15.03.2018 as per Petitioner No. 1's own case, only he
15 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
himself was the sole and fit Trustee present and no other Trustee was
in a fit condition to complete the quorum. That apart, despite Narayan
Tejpal Podar nor his legal guardian i.e. Respondent No.1 was served
with any notice of the Resolutions for change of address or change of
composition of Trust by Petitioner No. 1 since he was managing the
affairs of the Trust.
11. It is settled law that prima facie Section 22 has to be
preceded with an enquiry in a judicial manner by investigating into
legality and validity of the change as per Change Report submitted
especially in such contentious cases which are required to be decided
only after holding enquiry as prescribed and provided as per Rule 7.
The enquiry as prescribed is mandatory in accordance with procedure
for trial of suits under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 in
Greater Bombay Region and it allows a party to appear either in
person or by recognized agent or by pleader. Rule 7A prescribes
issuance of public notice and hearing of objections from persons
interested in the Trust. This enquiry is not conducted in the present
case and the procedure has been given a complete go-by. There is no
proof or credential of any document to show that meeting of the Trust
was actually conducted after following the due process of law to delete
the existing Trustee and substitute him with a new Trustee (Petitioner
No.1's own son) or either for change of address or composition of
Trust.
16 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
12. What is significant is that there is a clear finding returned in
the Joint Charity Commissioner's order that no notice was given to all
Trustees before holding the meeting and passing the contentious
Resolutions on 15.03.2018. The reason for seeking change as per
Application filed by Petitioner No. 1 is that one of the Trustee Narayan
Podar was in coma and bedridden and for proving this fact no enquiry
was undertaken to ascertain whether Narayan Podar was indeed
bedridden, and what was his status neither any witness was examined
or enquiry was conducted. All that the Assistant Charity Commissioner
opines is that Change Report is uncontested. What is most intriguing is
the fact that the medical certificate pertaining to Narayan Podar
appended to the Change Report as one of the Exhibits is dated
31.01.2017 whereas the Trust Meeting and Resolutions are passed on
15.03.2018 i.e. 15 months after the date of medical report and order is
passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on the Change Report
20 months after 31.01.2017. Therefore a clear doubt arises in the mind
as to why no enquiry was made in August 2018 when change report
was accepted and allowed almost 20 months after the date of medical
report placed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Before the
Joint Commissioner in appeal, Advocate for Petitioner No. 1
vehemently opposed and argued that since Narayan Podar was in coma
since 13.11.2016 therefore there was no question of serving notice
upon him. Petitioner No. 1 argued that Change Report was verified by
17 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
Assistant Charity Commissioner but however in view of my above
observations and findings and the manner in which the Change Report
is considered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the action of the
statutory Officer becomes highly questionable. The Assistant Charity
Commissioner has miserably failed to follow the due process of law. No
reasons are either given by him in his orders allowing the Change
Reports.
13. It is clearly seen in the facts of the present case that
Petitioner No. 1 has surreptitiously attempted to usurp the entire
control of the Trust for his family's benefit to the exclusion of the will
and intention of the original Trustees and settlors of the Trust. In view
of my above observations and findings both Petitions have to fail. All
subsequent actions of Petitioner No.1 to now fill up all 5 posts of
Trustees with his immediate family members i.e. his son, mother and
daughter and seize complete control of the Trust stand vitiated due to
setting aside of the orders passed by the Assistant Charity
Commissioner and confirmation of the said orders passed by the Joint
Charity Commissioner. Petitioner No.1's conduct amounts to nothing
but clearly a vicious attempt to usurp the Trust and its properties for
his family's personal benefit which is glaringly seen on the face of the
record and his malafide conduct clearly stands established. Findings
returned by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in paragraph no. 8
of the order dated 02.02.2022 in Revision Application Nos.111 of 2020
18 of 19
WP.15699.2022+WP.14797.2023.doc
and 112 of 2020 do not call for any interference whatsoever and for
the above reasons both the twin orders deserve to be upheld. Both
orders dated 02.02.2022 passed in Revision Application Nos.111 of
2020 and 112 of 2020 are upheld and confirmed. Both Writ Petitions
fail. Writ Petitions are dismissed.
14. I would like to mention in passing that Mr.Thipsay
conducted both the present matters on behalf of the Petitioners
gracefully.
15. Both Writ Petitions are disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
16. Ms. Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
Petitioners would persuade the Court to stay the present Judgment to
test its validity and legality in the Supreme Court. However in view of
the gross facts in the present case and the manner in which Petitioner
No.1 has conducted himself to the detriment of the other parties, I am
not inclined to accept the request made by Ms. Thakkar. Hence, the
request for stay is rejected.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2025.12.01
16:08:23 +0530
19 of 19
