Bombay High Court
Anantrao S/O Hagruji Bhure (Deleted) ... vs Dnyaneshwar Krushnaji Pohane And ... on 12 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11731
1/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 371 OF 2019
1. Anantrao s/o Hagruji Bhure
Aged about : 73 Years, Occu : Retired;
2. Baburao s/o Budhaji Ramtekkar
Aged about : 66 Years; Occu : Business;
R/o Pathardi Road, Nasik.
3. Dattatraya s/o Govindrao Katole
Aged about : 63 Years; Occu : Retired;
R/o Plot No.28, Shivkrupa Nagar, In front of
Macchindranath Maharaj Temple, Near
Mangaldeep Nagar No.2, Nagpur-440034.
[No.1 is deleted as per Court's order dated
15.4.2025 in Court]
[Nos.2 & 3 are deleted as per Court's order
dated 2.5.2025 in Court]
4. Smt. Shraddhatai w/o Amar Mahashabde
Aged about : 64 Years; Occu : Retired;
R/o Shramshri, Ruikar Road, Old Hislop
College Compound, Mahal, Nagpur - 32.
5. Mrs. Aruna w/o Anantrao Bhure
Aged about : 63 Years; Occu : Retired;
Nos.1 and 5 R/o Opp. Padole Clinic, Naik
Road, Mahal, Nagpur. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Dnyaneshwar Krushnaji Pohane
Aged : Major, Occu : Retired; R/o 43,
Vishwakarma Nagar, Nagpur.
2/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
2. Joint Charity Commissioner, Civil Lines,
Nagpur - 440001. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Krushnaji Pohane
Aged about : 75 Years, Occu : Retired;
R/o Vishwakarma Nagar, Nagpur. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Anantrao Hagruji Bhure
Aged : 75 Years; Occu : Retired; R/o Naik
Road, Mahal, Nagpur.
[Deleted as per Court's order dated
15.4.2025 and order dated 21.4.2024]
2. Baburao Ramtekkar
Aged : 72 Years, Occu : Business; R/o
Pathardi Road, Nashik.
3. Dattatraya Govindrao Katole
Aged about : 64 Years; R/o Siraspeth,
Nagpur.
4. Shraddhatai Amar Mahashabde
R/o Rauikar Road, Nagpur.
5. Mrs. Aruna Anantrao Bhure
Aged about : 69 Years; Occu : Service; R/o
Naik Road, Mahal, Nagpur.
6. Joint Charity Commissioner,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
3/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
Mr. Vijay Kumar Paliwal, Advocate for Appellants in First Appeal No. 371/2019
and for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in First Appeal No. 200/2022.
Mr. S. D. Abhyankar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in First Appeal No.
371/2019 and for Appellant in First Appeal No. 200/2022.
Mr. H. D. Futane, AGP for Respondent/State in both the Appeals.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : NOVEMBER 04, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 12, 2025.
COMMON JUDGMENT
. Heard Mr. Vijaykumar Paliwal, learned Counsel for Appellants in
First Appeal No. 371/2019 and for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in First Appeal No.
200/2022, Mr. S. D. Abhayankar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in First
Appeal No. 371/2019 and for Appellant in First Appeal No. 200/2022 and
Mr. H. D. Futane, AGP for Respondent/State in both the Appeals.
2. Both the Appeals are arising out of the same order dated
28/6/2017 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in
Application No. 17/2004 filed under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public
Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950'), whereby Respondent No.1 -
Dnyaneshwar Krushnaji Pohane was suspended from trusteeship of the Public
Trust registered in the name and style as "Sai Education Society, Nagpur"
(hereinafter be referred to as 'the Trust') under Section 41-D(4) of the Act of
4/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
1950 for the period of three years by continuing his membership of the Trust
and liberty to contest the election after expiry of suspension period.
3. In First Appeal No. 371/2019 the Appellants are original
Applicants, who had filed Application under Section 41-D of the Act of 1950
against the Respondent No.1 and in First Appeal No.200/2022, the Appellant
is original Non-applicant, against whom the order of suspension from
trusteeship is passed vide impugned order.
4. The challenge in First Appeal No. 371/2019 is to the extent that
impugned order dated 28/6/2017 be modified by imposing punishment of
dismissal instead of suspension of the Respondent No.1. Whereas, in First
Appeal No.200/2022, the prayer is made to quash and set aside the order of
suspension imposed upon the Appellant vide impugned order dated
28/6/2017.
5. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as per their original
status in the Application before the Charity Commissioner, Nagpur.
6. The brief facts of the matter are as under :
The Trust namely, "Sai Education Society, Nagpur" is duly
5/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
registered under the Provisions of the Act of 1950. The Applicant No.1 along
with others have filed application under Section 41-D of the Act of 1950 for
dismissal of Non-applicant from trusteeship. The allegations raised against the
Non-applicant are that he has not submitted the budget as per Section 31A of
the Act of 1950; not maintained proper accounts as per Section 32 of the Act;
and did not get the accounts audited regularly. They further alleged that
Non-applicant played fraud with other trustees and trust properties. The bank
account of the Trust was not properly maintained by the Non-applicant and did
not call regular meetings of the executive committee of the Society. On the
basis of these allegations, the Joint Charity Commissioner by order dated
19/6/2008 framed charges against the Non-applicant, which reads thus :
"1. That you, the Non-applicant, disobeyed the orders/directions
of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur issued from time to
time regarding submission of audited accounts/audit reports of the
trust.
2. That you, the Non-applicant, made persistent default in
submission of the audited accounts/audit reports of the trust.
3. That you, the Non-applicant, purposefully neglected your
duties thereby committed malfeasance and misfeasance.
4. That you, the Non-applicant, dealt with the trust fund
improperly thereby misappropriated the trust fund."
7. After framing charges against the Non-applicant, evidence was
6/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
recorded before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Applicants, in support of
their allegations, had entered into the witness-box through complainant
namely, Anantrao Hagruji Bhure, who was the Ex-President of the Trust and
Non-applicant examined himself and denied all the charges levelled against
him.
8. On the basis of evidence and the documents made available by the
parties, learned Joint Charity Commissioner proceeded to decide the
application under Section 41-D of the Act of 1950. According to the Joint
Charity Commissioner, the only charge proved against the Non-applicant is
that he has violated directions issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner in
Application No. 1/2004 decided on 22/3/2004 and thereby imposed
punishment of suspension for the period of three years from the date of
passing of order i.e. 28/6/2017.
9. The Applicants have preferred the First Appeal No. 371/2019
alleging therein that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner failed to consider
the documents and evidence placed on record and thereby wrongly recorded
findings in negative. Hence, they sought modification of the order to the extent
that instead of suspension of the Non-applicant he should be dismissed as
trustee of the Trust.
7/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
10. The Non-applicant in his Appeal No. 200/2022 stated that
considering the evidence available on record no charge is proved against him.
According to him, the finding recorded by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner is a perverse finding and same needs to be quashed and set
aside. Therefore, he challenged the order dated 28/6/2017 passed by the Joint
Charity Commissioner.
11. I have heard learned Counsel for both sides at length and perused
the record and the case laws cited by the Non-applicant.
12. Before deciding the issue involved in the First Appeal No.
371/2019, firstly, it will be necessary to refer the Judgment of this Court,
wherein the scope of Section 41-D of the Act of 1950 is thoroughly discussed.
This Court, in the case of Mallikarjuanappa Sidramappa Bidve and Ors. V/s
Joint Charity Commissioner and Ors.1 has observed in paragraph No.18 as
under :
"18. The legal position which may be kept at back of the mind, is that
removal of a trustee is a drastic action. The charge of malfeasance
and/or misfeasance is serious one. The proceedings are of quasi civil
and quasi criminal nature. Though the proceedings under Section 41D
is not criminal proceeding as such, yet, proof required to sustain the
charges is of high standard. The standard of proof in such proceedings
1 2008(1) Mh.L.J.148
8/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
is some what more than normally required in cases governed by
preponderance of probabilities and some what less than required in
trials of criminal cases. The degree of proof required in criminal case is
such that would prove criminal charge beyond a reasonable realm of
doubt. The imputation reflecting on integrity of trustees have to be
fortified by proof of high degree which would be somewhere in
between standard of proof required in civil proceedings like a suit and
criminal proceedings like a trial for offence of criminal breach of trust,
or that of cheating. Thus, unless the lapse on part of the trustee is
proved to be actuated by dishonesty or active connivance with other
trustees, who are guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance, the drastic
action under Section 41D of the BPT Act, may not be warranted."
So also this Court, in the case of Vajubhai Patel and another V/s
The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State and others 2 has observed in
paragraph No.72 as under :
"72. In the Oudh case (supra) wherein Azizor Rehman was cited
with approval, it has been emphasised that removal of trustees can
only be where the lapses proved against trustees were actuated by
dishonest and corrupt motives or showed an utter lack of
competence to administer the trust property. To quote from this
authority -
"Errors of judgment or miscarriage of discretion have to be
disregarded unless they be sufficiently chronic. One is apt
occasionally, to magnify such shortcomings into what are sometimes
characterised as breaches of duty, misconduct, misfeasance or gross
neglect. But if they are not the result of want of fidelity they cannot
be made the basis of interference."
2 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 94
9/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
From the abovesaid Judgments, the legal position is very much
clear that though the proceeding under Section 41-D is not criminal
proceeding, proof required to sustain the charges is of high standard. For
removal of trustee, lapse proved against him must be established beyond doubt
that he actuated by dishonesty and having corrupt motives or shown an utter
lack of competence to administer the trust property.
13. I have gone through the material available on record. In the
present Appeal, as per the finding recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner
that Non-applicant failed to follow the directions issued by the Joint Charity
Commissioner in Application No.1/2004 decided on 22/3/2004, therefore, I
have perused the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Bare perusal
of the order dated 22/3/2004 demonstrate the fact that present Non-applicant
was directed to call a meeting of the executive body members within one
month from the date of order and take a decision by majority for deciding the
date of election. As such, the whole intention of issuing directions by the Joint
Charity Commissioner was that there should be election of the executive
committee at an earliest.
14. As per my view, the order of Joint Charity Commissioner dated
22/3/2004 was passed only to direct the Non-applicant to conduct the
10/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
elections and to hold the elections in a fair and proper manner and the Joint
Charity Commissioner has directed to appoint the independent Election Officer
to carry out entire election programme. The Non-applicant admittedly
conducted the election by appointing the Election Officer. The said elections
were held and Change Reports are also filed by the respective parties.
15. From the record and particularly the evidence recorded before the
Joint Charity Commissioner, it is clear that in the cross-examination of
Anantrao Bhure, who was the Ex-President of the Trust, has categorically
admitted in his cross-examination that the election was conducted as per the
order dated 22/3/2004 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. He further
admitted that after completion of the election, Change Report was filed
bearing Change Report No.556/2004. Therefore, it is proved beyond doubt
that Applicant in pursuance of direction of Joint Charity Commissioner
conducted election of the Trust. Therefore, holding him responsible for such
charge is certainly illegal.
16. In my opinion, non-conducting election in proper manner is the
subject-matter of challenge by filing independent Appeal. Accordingly, the
same was already challenged. And now on the basis of the findings rendered in
the said Appeal, which was admittedly subsequent to filing of application
11/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
under Section 41-D, cannot be a reason to hold that Non-applicant has
committed misconduct in the matter.
17. In addition to above, as per the charges framed by the Joint
Charity Commissioner, Nagpur vide order dated 19/6/2008, no specific charge
has been framed against the Non-applicant, about which, directions issued by
the Joint Charity Commissioner vide order dated 22/3/2004 was not followed
by him. Hence, in absence of specific charge, no punishment can be imposed.
Therefore, impugned order of suspension of Non-applicant is bad in law.
18. Insofar as the other charges, main contention of the Applicants is
that there was persistent default on the part of Non-applicant in submission of
audited accounts/audit report of the Trust. To substantiate this fact, the
Applicants have relied upon the extract of Audit Book maintained under the
format of Appendix-10 of the Trust. They have pointed out that there is only
entry of audit done in the year 1984 to 1987. Hence, according to them, this is
the best evidence available on record which was not considered by the Joint
Charity Commissioner, and therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner has
committed error by holding that this charge is not proved against the Non-
applicant.
12/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
19. Per contra, the learned Counsel for Non-applicant has relied upon
the evidence which was recorded before the Joint Charity Commissioner. He
has pointed out from the evidence of Mr. Anantrao Bhure, who was President
of the Trust. In his cross-examination, the copy of constitution of the Trust was
produced on record which was marked as Exhibit-79. As per the clause - 11(A)
of the constitution of the Trust, it is one of the duty of President to look after
the financial transactions (nsok.k&Äsok.k) of the Trust. Therefore, it is stated that
if the Non-applicant is held to be responsible for this charge, then in the same
manner the President of the Trust was required to be held responsible for the
said charge. But no action of any kind was initiated against the Ex-President of
the Trust.
20. It is also pointed out from the cross-examination of Mr. Anantrao
Bhure that one Mrs. Shraddhatai Amar Mahashabde was a Treasurer of the
Trust as per Schedule-I. She is also one of the complainant in the matter. The
said witness has also admitted in her cross-examination that as per the
constitution of the Trust, work of maintaining account of the Trust is assigned
to the Treasurer. The work of writing accounts is also assigned to the Treasurer.
Hence, according to the Non-applicant, it is the Treasurer, who is responsible
13/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
for not maintaining the audit of the Trust. But again no action of any kind was
taken against the Treasurer of the Trust.
21. The Non-applicant further pointed out that the present Applicants
did not produce original documents on record under the pretext that same are
in the custody of Non-applicant. Accordingly, it is stated by the Non-applicant
that no case is made out against the Non-applicant to prove the said charge.
22. Insofar as the Annexure-10 (Exhibit-78), which is relied upon by
the Applicants is concerned, it is stated that this document is not maintained
upto the year 2004. However, the complainants never asked about it to the
Treasurer or the President, who were assigned to maintain the accounts of the
Trust. Therefore, this document cannot be considered as a conclusive proof to
hold that audit of the Trust is not done in the matter.
23. As regards the charge No.3 about malfeasance and misfeasance,
nothing has been placed on record nor same was proved before the Joint
Charity Commissioner. As such, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner,
considering the fact that no documentary evidence has been placed on record
about negligence of duty by the Non-applicant, this charge is not proved
against him. The Applicants in the present Appeal also failed to point out any
14/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
documentary evidence to demonstrate that there is malfeasance or misfeasance
on the part of Non-applicant.
24. In the light of abovesaid factual position and the law laid down by
this Court, it is clear that charges levelled against the Non-applicant are not
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
25. In the proceeding under Section 41-D the intention of the Non-
applicant is required to be looked into whether same was with dishonest
intention or to disrepute the Trust, but in the entire application filed by the
Applicants, no such allegations or averments made against the Non-
applicant. Therefore, in absence of this dishonest intention, merely because
there was some procedural lapse while conducting the elections, cannot be a
reason to take drastic action under Section 41-D of the Act of 1950.
26. Insofar as the other charge, which is raised during the course of
argument regarding not maintaining accounts is concerned, I have already
recorded, after analysing the evidence of Mr. Anantrao Bhure, that the
President and Treasurer are equally responsible to maintain the accounts of the
Trust. But, here is the case that the persons who are responsible to maintain
the accounts, no action is taken against them, on the contrary, the said persons
15/15 Judg.fa.371.2019 aw fa.200.2022.odt
filed a complaint against the Non-applicant. Hence, it is clear that only out of
political vendetta the action was initiated against the Non-applicant.
27. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that
punishment of suspension of three years from trusteeship imposed upon the
Non-applicant is not justified. Resultantly, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. First Appeal No. 371/2019 is hereby dismissed.
2. First Appeal No.200/2022 is allowed.
3. The impugned order dated 28/6/2017 passed by the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in Application No. 17/2004 filed under
Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 of suspending
the Non-applicant for a period of three years is hereby quashed and set
aside. Rest of the order is confirmed.
4. No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/11/2025 11:44:46
