Bombay High Court
Anandrao Manikrao Lathkar vs Madhavrao Ramchandra Shelgaonkar And ... on 21 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:19814
27.9704.2024.wp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9704 OF 2024
1. Shri. Anandrao Manikrao Lathkar
Age : 82 years, Occ. : Pensioner,
R/o Vasant Nagar, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
...PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Madhavrao Ramchandra Shelgaonkar
Age : Major, Occ. : Nil
R/o Shelgaon (Gauri), Tq. Biloli,
Dist. Nanded
2. Shri Chandrashekhar Marotrao Sonwane
Age : 78 Years, Occ. : Business,
R/o Sanmitra Colony, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
3. Shri. Govind Vyankatrao Thete
Age : 77 Years, Occ. : Pensioner,
R/o Anand Nagar, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
4. Shri. Dattatray Ramchandra Waghmare
Age : Major, Occ. : Nil
R/o Waghmare Hospital, Purna,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani
5. Shri. Narsingh Mohanrao Pawde
Age : Major, Occ. : Business,
R/o Bhagyanagar, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded
6. Shri. Gopalrao Arjunrao Kadam
Age : Major, Occ. : Agri.,
R/o Rajendra Nagar, Near Baba Nagar,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
komal kamble page 1 of 8
27.9704.2024.wp
7. Shri. Mohanrao Manikrao Sugaonkar
Age : Major, Occ. : Agri.,
R/o Phule Nagar,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
8. The Assistant Charity Commissioner-I,
Nanded Region, Nanded,
Having the official address
as Charity Commissioner office,
In front of Nanded Railway Station,
Hingoli Gate, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
9. Shri. Namdeo Eknathrao Ambore
Age : 78 years, Occ. : Pensioner,
R/o Chhatrapati Nagar, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
______________________________________
• Adv. Mr. A. A. Fulfagar, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondent/s - State
• Sr. Counsel Mr. V. D. Hon i/b Mr. U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate for
Respondent No. 6
______________________________________
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 21, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. By the present petition, the petitioner, who along with one
Namdeo Eknathrao Ambhore had filed an application under Section 50A
of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 for framing scheme in
relation to a registered public trust named Marathwada Shikshan
Sanstha, Nanded challenges the judgment and order dated 27.08.2021
passed by the learned I/c Assistant Charity Commissioner - I, Nanded
Region, Nanded, as also the judgment and order dated 29.01.2024
komal kamble page 2 of 8
27.9704.2024.wp
passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Chhatrapati
Sambhajingar Region, Chhatrapati Sambhajingar, dismissing Appeal No.
20 of 2021 preferred by the petitioner and thereby confirming the
scheme framed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner.
2. Mr. Fulfagar, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends
that while framing the scheme under Section 50A of the Act, the learned
Assistant Charity Commissioner has appointed persons, who were earlier
associated with the Trust, as Executive Committee members as Trustees
although their functioning while they were holding the office prior to
framing of the scheme, was not proper resulting in appointment of
administrator over the public Trust. He contends that the trust is an
educational trust and yet the persons appointed as Trustees were guilty
of not conducting audit of the Trust. He further contends that the
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has erred in making
appointment of Trustees under Section 50A of the Act. According to the
learned Advocate, appointment of Trustees falls within the jurisdiction of
the Charity Commissioner under Section 47 of the Act. The learned
Advocate also contends that while four different schemes were filed
before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in four separate
applications, which are decided by a common judgment, the learned
Assistant Charity Commissioner has framed a separate scheme and that
while framing an independent scheme, apart from the drafts submitted
komal kamble page 3 of 8
27.9704.2024.wp
by respective parties, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has
not afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the
aforesaid, it is submitted that the scheme framed by the learned Assistant
Charity Commissioner is unsustainable and the judgment and order
framing the same is required to be quashed. He contends that the
learned Joint Charity Commissioner has also erred in not noticing these
vital aspects of the matter while confirming the scheme framed.
3. It cannot be disputed that there was indeed a need for
framing the scheme inasmuch as the petitioner and three (03) other
groups had filed application, praying for framing of scheme. In all four
scheme applications were submitted by the respective parties. The
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has concurred with the opinion
of the applicants in all the four applications that there was indeed a need
for framing a scheme for smooth functioning of the Trust.
4. The learned Advocate contends that before framing the
scheme the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner had not afforded
opportunity of hearing to the parties. This contention is contrary to the
record. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has clearly recorded
that all the concerned were heard and thereafter the order framing
scheme was passed. Perusal of initial paragraphs in the judgment will
demonstrate that opportunity of hearing was indeed granted.
komal kamble page 4 of 8
27.9704.2024.wp
5. As regards the contentions with respect to authority of the
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to appoint Trustees in the
scheme, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on
judgment dated 11.07.2023, in the matter of Pravin Vijayrao Pawar Vs.
State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 7671 of 2018, Nagpur
Bench). In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that in
cases where there is no trustee in existence with respect to any public
Trust, appointment of Trustees is required to be made by taking recourse
to Section 47 of the Act. It will, however, be pertinent to mention that in
Paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is specifically held that power to
appoint Trustees is also vested with the Assistant or Deputy Charity
Commissioner, while framing scheme under Section 50A of the Act.
6. In the case at hand, the learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner has framed a scheme under Section 50A and while
framing the scheme, Trustees have been appointed. While doing so, a
new scheme other than the one, which was prevailing, is framed by the
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. While framing the scheme, it
was necessary for the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to
nominate first Board of Trustees. The learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner has accordingly done so. Needless to mention that even
the judgment on which the learned Advocate places reliance recognizes
this power and authority to appoint Trustees while framing scheme
komal kamble page 5 of 8
27.9704.2024.wp
under Section 50A of the Act. In that view of the matter, the first
contention raised by the learned Advocate regarding inter se between
Section 50A and Section 47 is liable to be rejected. Had it been a case
that the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner did not deem it
necessary to frame a scheme and yet if he had ventured to appoint
Trustees, then probably the argument of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner could be accepted.
7. The next submission by the learned advocate is that the
persons who were working as Executive Committee members with the
Trust earlier only have been appointed as Trustees. It needs to be
mentioned that the present petitioner was also associated with the Trust
as an Executive Committee member and he is also appointed as a trustee
under the scheme framed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner.
The learned Charity Commissioner has deemed it appropriate that rather
than introducing strangers in the Trust for the first time, the people who
were associated with the Trust be appointed as Trustees. The objection of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while these persons,
including the petitioner himself were associated with the Trust as
Executive Committee members, they did not discharge their duties
diligently, as a consequence of which administrator was required to be
appointed. However, the learned advocate fairly states that there are no
allegations of any misconduct in the nature of malfeasance or
komal kamble page 6 of 8
27.9704.2024.wp
misfeasance. At best, it can be said that there was some mistake in
prompt upkeep of accounts and failure to file audit reports. This by itself,
in my considered opinion, may not be a reason good enough to interfere
with the discretion exercised by the learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner, while making appointment of Trustees. Although the
order framing scheme is a quasi-judicial order and a scheme has to be
framed on an objective assessment of the material on record, selection of
Trustees to a great extent will depend upon subjective satisfaction of the
authority. There is nothing to warrant interference with subjective
satisfaction exercised by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner
while making appointment of Trustees. It needs to be mentioned that the
tenure of the Executive Committee of the Trust is fixed at five years and
therefore, if any person does not discharge his duties properly, he can
always be democratically removed from the office.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that earlier the
deed of Trust provided for Board of Trustees and Executive Committee.
The property of the trust vested with the Board of Trustees and day to
day functioning of the Trust was looked after by the Executive
Committee. This according to him is a ideal mechanism, which was
provided under the original Trust deed, which ought not to have been
disturbed. The contention is liable to be rejected. In most of the cases the
Trustees of the public Trust and members of the Executive Committee are
komal kamble page 7 of 8
27.9704.2024.wp
the same. In very few cases, Board of Trustees and Executive Committee
are two separate bodies. The general rule is followed by the learned
Assistant Charity Commissioner. This Court sees no reason to interfere
with the decision of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in doing
away with a separate Board of Trustees.
9. In that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this
Court, no case is made out warranting interference with the order
framing scheme passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner,
which is confirmed by the appellate authority namely the Joint Charity
Commissioner.
10. The petition stands dismissed.
11. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]
komal kamble page 8 of 8
