[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Andheri Recreation Club Mumbai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thr The Office Of ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:53647
WP.8478.2022.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8478 OF 2022
Andheri Recreation Club and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Ramchandra Apte, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr Dilip Shukla and
Mr. Steve Fernandes, Advocates for Petitioners.
Mr. P.V. Shah, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 11.
Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP a/w Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 - State.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 08, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioners and
Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 11 and Mr. Patel,
learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 - State.
2. Petitioner No.1 is a public Trust which commenced its
operations in 1970 as a Social Club. It has 3000 members today.
Petition challenges order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Joint Charity
Commissioner in Statutory Appeal No. 647 of 2019 and order dated
19.06.2019 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner rejecting
Change Report No. 2859 of 1994 on the ground of delay without
holding any enquiry.
1 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
3. Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate appears for the
Petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 are Trustees of Petitioner No. 1.
Petitioner Nos.4 to 12 are members of Petitioner No.1 - Trust whereas
Respondent No.3 is a former member of the Trust who has been
suspended and subsequently expelled. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are
the State and Joint Charity Commissioner. The present Petition is
opposed and contested by Respondent No. 3 represented by Mr. Shah.
Respondent No. 3 has filed affidavit- in-reply dated 03.10.2022 stating
that reply is filed on behalf of himself and Respondent Nos. 4 to 11
however authority of Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 enabling Respondent
No.3 to file affidavit-in -reply on their behalf is not appended or
disclosed.
4. Briefly stated the following facts are relevant for deciding
the present Petition. The Club started its operations in 1970 it is
governed by its Constitution. One Mr V.G Rawat, founder Trustee of
the Club / Petitioner No. 1 - Trust filed Change Report No. 2859 of
1994 with Charity Commissioner seeking amendment to the
Constitution of the Club as per Resolutions adopted and passed in the
General Body meeting held on 19.01.1992. Admittedly there was a
delay of 2 years and 3 months in filing this Change Report at that time.
It remained pending.
4.1. Mr. VG Rawat expired in 1998. Thereafter on 11.11.2011
2 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
Charity Commissioner appointed its staff to trace all pending Change
Reports in the record of Petitioner No.1 since due to renovation and
shifting the of 16 other pending Change Reports were discovered. The
then President mr. R.K. Jain filed Miscellaneous Application No. 510 of
2011 seeking condonation of delay in respect of pending Change
Report No. 2859 of 1994 and pressed the same. By order dated
11.11.2011 the above Miscellaneous Application was allowed, delay
was condoned on payment of costs of Rs.300. After the above order of
condonation of delay, detailed enquiry was conducted by office of
Charity Commissioner and by 17 separate orders all dated 01.09.2015,
all 17 pending Change Reports were accepted and allowed (including
Change Report No. 2859 of 1994). At around the same time
Respondent No. 3 Mr. Rajesh Chunnilal Meghani was initially
suspended and after enquiry was expelled from membership of
Petitioner No .1 - Trust and its Club by the General Body after the
following the due process of law. Mr. Meghani had enrolled in the Club
as member in 1998. He was Treasurer of the Club from 2005 to 2015
until his termination / expulsion.
4.2. Being aggrieved Mr. Meghani filed Statutory Appeal to
challenge the order dated 01.09.2015 allowing Change Report no.
2859 of 1994 and by order dated 04.12.2017, Joint Charity
Commissioner allowed the appeal and directed fresh hearing on merits
of the Change Report. The Assistant Charity Commissioner heard
3 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
Change Report No. 2859 of 1994 and by order dated 19.06.2019
dismissed the said Change Report merely on the ground of delay by
rejecting the condonation of delay application and without adhering to
the merits despite a specific order of remand.
4.3. The Petitioner being aggrieved filed Statutory Appeal before
Joint Charity Commissioner which was rejected on 22.04.2022. Both
the above concurrent judgments dated 19.06.2019 and 22.04.2022 are
challenged in the present Writ Petition by Petitioners. Judgement
dated 22.04.2022 is appended at page No. 41. By virtue of this
judgment, amendment in Change Report No. 2859 of 2024 dating back
to the General Body meeting held on 19.01.1992 is rejected on the
ground that 30 years have passed thereafter and it is held that no
purpose will be served by remanding the matter back to Assistant
Charity Commissioner because of the error committed by him for not
having decided the Change Report on merits and not considering the
evidence afresh. Therefore the Appeal is dismissed concluding that the
resolutions proposed by General Body in its General Body meeting
dated 19.01.1992 may not have the same effect after 30 years. The
said judgment directs the General Body to take appropriate decision in
freshly in accordance with law and for these reasons appeal is
dismissed directing the General Body to decide afresh once again. To
the extent of condonation of delay the judgment held that rejecting the
Change Report for the delay by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is
4 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
correct and the same is upheld. The Petitioners being aggrieved have
filed the present Petition on multiple grounds. The Petition is
vehemently opposed by Respondent No. 3.
5. Mr. Apte for Petitioners would submit that the impugned
order is unsustainable in law despite there being a categorical finding
returned that the Assistant Charity Commissioner did not obey the
directions given by the Joint Charity Commissioner in his order dated
04.12.2017 before deciding the Change Report, Next he would submit
that finding stating that no purpose will be served after remanding the
matter back to Assistant Charity Commissioner since 30 years have
passed and the matter was previously remanded once is a totally
erroneous and perverse finding on the face of record.
5.1. He would vehemently submit that Petitioner Club is
functioning on the basis of the amended constitution already for the
last 30 years and in accordance with the 16 other separate orders all
dated 01.09.2015 having being passed in the 16 Change Reports which
were allowed and accepted pursuant to fresh enquiry. He would
submit that these Change Reports and orders passed therein are not
challenged, that they have become absolute and final and Petitioner
No. 1 - Trust has adopted the changes as per these accepted Change
Reports over the past 30 years and has acted in consonance therewith.
Hence he would submit that the impugned orders are ex facie invalid
5 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
and unjustified in the facts of the present case.
5.2. Next he would submit that the impugned judgement of the
Joint Charity Commissioner erroneously returns a finding that Mr. V.G.
Rawat did not file application for condonation of delay and it was filed
only by Mr. R.K. Jain in 2011. He would submit that there was
renovation of the Club during the interregnum and all records of the
Club were untraceable and in disarray. He would submit that the Joint
Charity Commissioner Smt. Abha Kolde at that time on application
made by the Trust appointed one of its staff member to take search in
its record and only thereafter apart from Change Report no. 2859 of
1994, 16 other Change Reports were traced out which were pending
hearing and decision for a long time. He would submit that these 16
Change Reports were filed between 1994 and 2013 details of which
are given in paragraph No. 13 of the Writ Petition. He would submit
that these Change Reports were thereafter allowed by 16 separate
orders all dated 01.09.2015 which were accepted and confirmed. He
has persuaded me to read the said 16 orders appended at Exhibit "D
Collectively" from page No. 160 to 203 of the Petition and would urge
me to consider the same and set aside the perverse findings returned in
the impugned judgement dated 22.04.2022.
6. Apart from the submissions on merits, Mr Apte would submit
that Respondent No. 3 was an erstwhile member / Treasurer of the
6 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
Club until his membership was suspended and he stood terminated in
2015 after following the due process of law. He would submit that as
an act of vengeance Respondent No. 5 has challenged the order dated
01.09.205 passed in Change Report No. 2859 of 1994 by filing Appeal
No 485 of 2015 without having any locus. He would submit that
Respondent No. 5 has no locus standi to challenge the said order as he
has no nexus with the club / trust after his expulsion. That apart he
would submit that Respondent No. 5 never challenged the acceptance
of the 16 Change Reports, inter alia , many of which pertained to
change in the Constitution of the Club. He would submit that
Respondent No. 5 has not been able to procure any relief in respect of
his termination in proceedings filed right up to the Supreme Court and
therefore he has no locus whatsoever to file Appeal No. 485 of 2015
and / or even contest the present Petition. Hence he would submit that
Petition be allowed by passing appropriate order / directions for
management of the Petitioner No. 1 - Trust / Club by setting aside the
impugned judgement and order in the interest of justice and in the
interest of all members of the Club .
7. PER CONTRA, Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of Respondent
No. 3 Mr. Meghani has vehemently contested the present Petition. He
has filed a detailed affidavit running into 50 pages dated 03.10.2022
with several exhibits and judgements to oppose the Petition. It is seen
that Respondent No. 3 has raised several grievances and irregularities
7 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
regarding functioning of the Trust and leveled multiple allegations
against the Trust / Petitioners and its operations. It is seen that he has
admitted to his expulsion from the membership of the Club by the
Trust in his affidavit. If that is the case then locus of Respondent No. 3
is directly in question and he would not have the right to contest the
present Petition. However it is seen that Respondent No. 3 initially
filed a Treasurer Suit being SC Suit No. 2556 of 2015 against the
Petitioners challenging his removal as stated in his Affidavit. In 2015
by order dated 20.10.2015 passed in Notice of Motion No. 2427 of
2015 ad - interim relief was refused to him. Mr. Shah informs Court
that the Treasurer Suit is disposed of. Respondent No. 3 has further
stated that he has filed a Suspension Suit bearing No. 3602 of 2015 in
the Civil Court to challenge his suspension which is pending as on
date.
8. Mr. Shah has relied upon several decision of the Supreme
Court and this Court on the ground of sufficient cause, condonation of
delay and a new case made out for the first time in appeal proceedings.
I have considered his submissions and the judgments which are
appended to the affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 3.
9. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and with the able assistance of the learned
Advocates, perused the record of the case.
8 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
10. In view of Respondent No.'s own admissions about his ouster
and expulsion, his intervention cannot be countenanced by the Court.
Respondent No. 3 is no a longer a member of the Petitioner No. 1's
Club and he stands expelled and terminated, hence as a matter of
shield he has roped in Respondent No. 4 to 11 along with him who are
members of the Trust / Club. However these members have not given
any authority to Respondent No. 3 nor have they filed their affidavits.
Hence on this ground also, Respondent No. 3's intervention cannot be
allowed. Respondent No. 3 has raised multiple allegations of diversion
of funds, irregularities in composition of the Governing Council of the
Trust, composition of a parallel Trust called ARC by some Governing
Counsel members of the Trust and inter se flow of funds between the
two Trusts. He has challenged minutes of various AGMs and Governing
Council meetings of the Trust, the show-cause-notices issued to him
and his order of suspension and expulsion in various foras.
11. From the above, it is seen that Respondent No. 3, prima facie
has no locus whatsoever to challenge the order dated 01.09.2015,
allowing Change Report No. 2859 of 1994. Once this is so held all
consequential actions thereafter will have to be decided in that
context. It is seen that the order dated 04.12.2017 of remand to
Assistant Charity Commissioner is not complied with as directed. That
apart the Assistant Charity Commissioner decided the appeal merely
on condonation of delay without granting opportunity to the Trust to
9 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
explain the delay and has dismissed the appeal.
12. It is seen that 16 other Change Reports, inter alia pertaining
to amendment to the Constitution of the Petitioner No. 1 - Trust
already have been accepted and allowed by 16 separate orders dated
01.09.2015 and these changes have been adopted by Petitioner No. 1
for the past 33 years. If the clock is set back as opined by the learned
Joint Charity Commissioner in the impugned order all decisions taken
by the Petitioner No .1 - Trust in the past 33 years would stand vitiated
and nullified. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not
considered this aspect at all and neither considered the orders allowing
the 16 Change Reports and has passed a sweeping order for fresh
consideration of the changes to the Constitutional amendments by the
General Body. The impugned Judgment is passed with complete non
application of mind without giving any reasons. Hence in view of the
aforesaid observations and findings, the impugned Judgement dated
22.04.2024 is prima facie on the face of record unsustainable and
deserves to be interfered with.
13. In view of the above observations and findings, the
impugned judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Joint Charity
Commissioner and order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Assistant
Charity Commissioner are both quashed and set aside. As a result of
the above, Change Report No. 2859 of 1994 stands allowed by this
10 of 11
WP.8478.2022.doc
order. The delay of 2 years and 3 months in filing this Change Report
stands condoned. Order dated 11.11.2011 of condonation of delay
passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 510 of 2011 is upheld.
14. No imprimatur of the Court is given on suspension and
expulsion of Respondent No. 3 as also no opinion is expressed on the
pending Suspension suit filed by Respondent No. 3 in the Civil Court
which shall be dealt with on its own merits and strictly in accordance
with law. Since there is no separate challenge maintained to the 16
orders passed in the 16 Change Reports the orders of which are
appended at Exhibit "D collectively", the said orders are all upheld as
they have been passed pursuant to detailed enquiry conducted by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner and since they have been implemented
over the years and followed by the Petitioner No.1 - Trust, the same
are confirmed.
15. The Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause 'a', 'b'
and 'c' along with the aforesaid directions.
16. Petition is allowed and disposed in above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay TRAMBAK
AJAY UGALMUGALE
TRAMBAK
UGALMUGALE Date:
2025.12.08
20:15:34
+0530
11 of 11
