Bombay High Court
Zilla Pariviksha Anurakshan And Others vs Jayashree Bapu Shirtode on 23 July, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
908 SA 200.21.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.200 OF 2021
Zilla Pariviksha Anurakshan Sanghatana, ...Appellants
Sangli & Anr.
Versus
Ms. Jayashree Bapu Shirtode ...Respondent
Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate i/by Ms. Rati S. Sinhasane for
Appellants.
Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 23rd July 2025
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Umesh Mankapure, learned Counsel for the
Appellants and Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
2. Perusal of record shows that the Respondent-Plaintiff filed
Regular Civil Suit No.187 of 2004 in the Court of learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Sangli for a declaration that the Order
dated 5th May 2004, by which the Respondent has been terminated
from the service of the Appellant No.1 be declared as illegal, null
and void and that she be granted all the benefits by considering
her service of Care-Taker as continuous service. The learned Trial
Court by the Judgment and Decree dated 17th January 2013
Dusane
908 SA 200.21.DOC
dismissed the Suit. The Respondent-Plaintiff challenged the said
Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court by filing Regular
Civil Appeal No.148 of 2013 and by the Judgment and Decree
dated 17th January 2020 the learned District Judge-1, Sangli set
aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court and
decreed the Suit by holding that the said termination order dated
5th May 2004 is illegal and null and void.
3. It is the main submission of Mr. Mankapure, learned Counsel
that the Suit has been filed without obtaining permission of the
Charity Commissioner under the provisions of Section 51 read with
Section 50 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act as the Appellant
No.1 i.e. Defendant No.1 is the Trust. To substantiate his
contention, Mr. Mankapure, learned Counsel relied on the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Church of North
India V. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors.1 and the Judgment of this
Court in the case of Rajiv K. Mehta of Mumbai Vs. Rekha H. Sheth
and Ors.2
4. Apart from that, it is his submission that the trustees of the
said Trust are the learned Principal District Judge, Sangli, the
1 (2005) 10 SCC 760
2 (2014) 3 Bom CR 771
Dusane
908 SA 200.21.DOC
Collector, Sangli and the Superintendent of Police, Sangli, etc. and
the entire funds for administration of the said Trust are provided
by the Government of Maharashtra and inspite of that, the
Government of Maharashtra has not been made party and
therefore, the Suit itself is not maintainable.
5. Mr. Mankapure, learned Counsel, further submits that the
impugned Judgment and Decree of the learned First Appellate
Court is contrary to the evidence on record.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.1- Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff has claimed
personal rights and enforcement of rights of the private nature and
therefore, the permission of the Charity Commissioner is not
necessary. He submits that the Government of Maharashtra is
neither necessary or proper party. He further submits that no
interference in the impugned order is warranted.
7. Prima facie, the Respondent No.1- Plaintiff is seeking setting
aside of termination of her employment by the Appellant-Trust by
Order dated 5th May 2004. Section 50 (iv) read with Section 51 of
the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act specifies that for filing Suit
seeking any declaration or injunction in favour of or against a
public trust or trustee or trustees or beneficiary thereof, permission
Dusane
908 SA 200.21.DOC
of the Charity Commissioner is necessary. Proviso to Section 51
specifies that no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in Section
50 shall be instituted in respect of any public trust, except in
conformity with the provisions thereof.
8. Thus, the Second Appeal is admitted on the following
substantial questions of law :
(i) Whether the Regular Civil Suit No.187 of 2004 filed by
the Respondent No.1-Plaintiff against the Appellant No.1-
Defendant No.1 Public Trust, registered under the provisions
of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, is maintainable
without obtaining the consent as contemplated under
Section 50 read with 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts
Act?
(ii) Whether the Suit is maintainable without impleading
the Government of Maharashtra as party to the Suit?
(iii) Whether the finding of the learned First Appellate
Court that the termination order dated 5th May 2004 of the
Defendant No.1 is illegal is contrary to the evidence on
record?
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
DUSANE
Dusane
