Bombay High Court
Shri Ramesh Devram Sable And Ors vs Shri Kondaji Hussain Maner(Died) And ... on 23 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:40228
Digitally FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
signed by
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
NAIK Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
2025.09.24
16:43:06
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1634 OF 2012
1. Shri Ramesh Devram Sable
2. Shri Ilahi Mirasaheb Tamboli
3. Shri Nitin Uttam Torve
4. Shri Rohan Ramesh Sable
5. Shri Nitin Dnyandev Sable
6. Shri Sham Ramchandra Sable
7. Shri Sunil Devram Sable
8. Shri Vishnu Mira Wagmare
9. Shri Harshwardhan Ramesh Sable
10. Shri Bhimrao Chokha Sawant
11. Sou. Archana Prakash Surve
12. Sou. Ujawala Manohar Sawant
13. Smt. Minakshi Rajesh Surve
14. Sou. Ushatai Dnyandev Lavate
15. Shri Shahajahan Hussain Maner
16. Shri Shamrao Chokha Sawant
17. Shri Dnyandev Namdeo Sable
18. Shri Amit Uttam Torve
19. Shri Daji Pandurang Babar
20. Shri Annaso Shamrao Patil
21. Shri Vithal Mahadeo Dagade
22. Sau. Chhaya Vasant Patil
23. Sau. Prabhawati Vithal Dagade ....Appellants
Versus
1. Shri Kondaji Hussain Maner (died) (deleted)
2. Shri Sadik Dilawar Maner
3. Shri Nandkumar Dhondiram Gujale (deleted)
4. Shri Alli Ismail Maner
5. Shri Bismilla Maula Maner
6. Shri Magan Jainuddin Maner (deleted)
7. Shri Mahaboob Kondaji Maner (deleted)
8. Shri Harun Kasim Maner
9. Shakirabee Zakir Hussain Maner
akn 1/13
::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:27:49 :::
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
10. Shri Mahmood Badshah Tamboli (died) (deleted)
11. Shri Jamal Miraso Tamboli (died) (deleted)
12. Charity Commissioner ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1638 OF 2012
1. Shri Ramesh Devram Sable
2. Shri Ilahi Mirasaheb Tamboli
3. Shri Nitin Uttam Torve
4. Shri Rohan Ramesh Sable
5. Shri Nitin Dnyandev Sable
6. Shri Sham Ramchandra Sable
7. Shri Sunil Devram Sable
8. Shri Vishnu Mira Wagmare
9. Shri Harshwardhan Ramesh Sable
10. Shri Bhimrao Chokha Sawant
11. Sou. Archana Prakash Surve
12. Sou. Ujawala Manohar Sawant
13. Smt. Minakshi Rajesh Surve
14. Sou. Ushatai Dnyandev Lavate
15. Shri Rajmohammed Shahjahan Maner
16. Shri Shahajahan Hussain Maner
17. Shri Shamrao Chokha Sawant
18. Shri Dnyandev Namdeo Sable
19. Shri Amit Uttam Torve ...Appellants
Versus
1. Shri Shivappa Bhagwant Kumbhar (deleted)
2. Shri Vithoba Yamaji Dhokte (died) (deleted)
3. Shri Annayya Basayya Swami (deleted)
4. Shri Sadashiv Basayya Swami
5. Shri Ramchandra Babu Karande (deleted)
6. Shri Kondaji Hussein Maner (died) (delted)
7. Shri Zakir Hussein Kondaji Maner
8. Shri Mahmood Badshah Tamboli (died) (deleted)
9. Charity Commissioner ...Respondents
akn 2/13
::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:27:49 :::
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
***
Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni & Mr.
Siddharth Shitole for Appellants in FA/1634/2012.
Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w Mr. Siddharth Shitole for Appellants in
FA/1638/2012.
Mr. Ashwin Kapadnis a/w. Mr. M. D. Mali for Respondent No. 2 in
FA/1634/2012.
Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan a/w. Mr. Sachin Padaye for Respondent No.9 in
FA/1634/2012 & for Respondent No.7 in FA/1638/2012.
***
CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.
RESERVED ON : 8th AUGUST 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. These Appeals are arising out of common judgment and order
30/10/2012 passed by District Judge-3, Sangli in Misc. Civil Application
(Trust) Nos. 167/2012 and 172/2012. FA/1634/2012 is filed by Applicants
in Misc. Civil Application (Trust) No. 167 of 2012 and FA/1638/2012 is filed
by Applicants in Misc. Civil Application (Trust) No. 172 of 2012. By the
impugned order, the Applications filed under Section 72(1) of the Bombay
Public Trust Act 1950 are dismissed, thereby confirming common judgment
and order dated 17/04/2012 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur in Appeal No. 89 of 2007 and Revision
Application No. 20 of 2009. By the said common order dated 17/04/2012,
the learned Joint Charity Commissioner had allowed the said Appeal and
Revision, thereby setting aside the order dated 03/10/2007 passed by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli in Change Report No. 2100 of 2007
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
("the said CR" for short) and matter was remanded back to the Assistant
Charity Commissioner for decision in accordance with law in view of
observations made by Joint Charity Commissioner. Thus, the first order that
started the present dispute is an order dated 03/10/2007 which passed the
said CR, whereby it is accepted by a cryptic order, passed without issuing
notices or due inquiry, and apparently in a hasty manner.
3. Few facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under.
3.1) Dispute pertains to the said CR in respect of Malran Shikshan
Sanstha Birobaban Arewadi, Taluka-Kavathemahankal, Dist. Sangali.
It is a public charitable trust duly registered under Bombay Public
Trust Act, 1950 ("the said Act" for short) having an object to run
educational institute.
3.2) The said CR came to be filed ostensibly by one Mr. Kondaji
Hussain Maner on 28/09/2007 for recording names of 15 incoming
trustees for the year 2007-2010 and for deleting names of 15 outgoing
trustees (trustees for earlier period). The said CR was filed on the
basis of an alleged general body meeting dated 24/08/2007. Certain
documents were filed along with change report.
3.3) Within 6 days of filing change report, on 03/10/2007, the then
Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli, Region Sangali accepted the
change report.
3.4) The said acceptance of change report was challenged by 5
persons who are Appellants in Appeal No. 89 of 2007 as well as 13
persons who are Applicants in Revision Application No. 20 of 2009.
3.5) The Joint Charity Commissioner hearing the said Appeal and
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
Revision found that in the said change report, 15 members are shown
as outgoing members of the managing body and 15 persons are shown
as incoming members for managing body. It was found that the
Assistant Charity Commissioner had not even issued notices to the
stated outgoing members. It was further found that no reason for not
issuing notices is given. It was found that only four documents were
filed along with the said change report which contained xerox copy of
no objection letter by outgoing members and one affidavit of Mr.
Kondaji Hussain Maner, who was purportedly the reporting trustee. It
was found that there was no notice issued for the alleged general
body meeting dated 24/08/2007 and there are no proceedings for the
said meeting. So called 'no objection letter' of the outgoing members
was only a xerox copy which was marked as true copy by the
reporting trustee. No explanation was found as to why original 'no
objection letter' is not on record. It was found that documents in
support of the said change report are doubtful and deep inquiry is
necessary. The Joint Charity Commissioner found that concerned
Assistant Charity Commissioner had completely failed to follow his
duties. In such circumstances, the order dated 03/10/2007 was set
aside and the matter has been remanded for fresh decision in
accordance with law under order dated 17/04/2012.
3.6) By impugned order dated 30/10/2012, the order of remand has
been confirmed by District Judge after considering the detailed
submissions and evidence on record.
3.7) Thus, the present Appellants are before this Court against
concurrent findings of fact.
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Naik and learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni for
the Appellans have made submissions which are in support of each other.
4.1) It is submitted that so far as FA/1638/2012 is concerned, out of
5 objectors, 4 objectors are no more and one Mr. Sadashive is
bedridden who is 90 years old and not represented before the Court.
It is therefore submitted that on account of almost non-existence of
original objectors, the challenge to acceptance of said CR has become
infructuous. In addition, it is submitted that even otherwise, on
account of expiry of period of said change report (from 2007 to 2010)
long ago, no fruitful purpose will be served by conducting any inquiry
or hearing pursuant to the impugned order of remand and the issue is
more or less academic. The order passed by this Court in group of first
appeals dated 21/03/2025 (about same trust) is relied upon,
contending that similar order be passed as these appeals are also
academic.
4.2) So far as FA/1634/2012 is concerned, it is submitted that the
revision was filed by 13 objectors out of whom 6 objectors are no
more, and 5 have filed affidavit in Revision supporting the case of the
present Appellants to the effect that the change report is legal and
valid. Thus, out of original 13 revision Applicants only Applicant Nos.
3, 7, 9, 12 and 13 remain as contesting parties. It is submitted that
even out of these 5 revision Applicants, 3 are not represented by any
Advocate in the Appeal. Thus, in short only 2 persons are contesting
the present Appeal viz. Sadik Maner and Shakirabee Maner and
therefore the entire exercise of defending the impugned order is at the
instance of these two persons.
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
4.3) Mr. Naik, learned Senior Advocate, relying upon
Jagatnarayansingh Swarupsingh Chithere vs. Swarupsingh Education
Society [(1980) Mh.L.J 372] and Marutirao Vishwanath Bagal vs.
Dinkar Kashinath More [2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 982], submitted that period
for which the said change report was concerned, viz. 2007 to 2010 is
over long back, and thereafter multiple elections have taken place and
long list of subsequent change reports are pending before the
concerned Assistant Charity Commissioner for a period from 2010 to
2025/2027. Details of change reports are placed on record. Relying on
the said judgments, it is submitted that because of the subsequent
developments and multiple new changes, the whole purpose of fresh
consideration/inquiry is unnecessary and academic and question in
abstract should not be decided normally. It is submitted that whole
inquiry, upon remand, is unnecessary. It is submitted that only
exception carved out by this Court in judgment of Marutirao
Vishwanath Bagal (Supra) is the case of fraud and forgery made out in
relation to change report in question. It is submitted that in the facts
of this case, no sufficient case of fraud and forgery is made out as
there is not a single complaint filed by any of the revision applicants
against the present Appellant No. 1-Ramesh D. Sable invoking the
penal provisions under IPC.
5. Per contra, Mr. Chavan and Mr. Kapadnis appearing for some of the
Respondents, opposed the arguments made on behalf of the Appellants. It is
submitted that the very entry of Appellant No. 1 Ramesh D. Sable must be
considered on merits, which is against the trust constituion. It is submitted
that just because some of the original objectors have switched sides or have
given up the cause, does not mean that enquiry into illegality committed by
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
the Appellant No. 1 should be overlooked. It is submitted that under section
22 of the said Act, a finding is supposed to be recorded by the Asst. Charity
Commissioner on being satisfied that the reported change has taken place.
No such satisfaction / finding is recorded and therefore reconsideration on
merits is necessary. It is strongly suggested that outcome of inquiry pursuant
to remand, will have direct bearing on the subsequent change reports.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
7. These Appeals serve as an example, how over an absolutely
unsustainable cryptic order, litigation can remain pending for years together,
travelling from authority to authority and that too in respect of a public
charitable trust having object to run educational institutions. It is
unfortunate to see how rival fractions of trustees and managing bodies
purportedly having concern with education, fight.
8. It is seen from the record that Mr. Kondaji Husen Maner has taken a
stand that he had not filed the said CR himself and Mr. Ramesh D. Sable
(Appellant No.1 in both Appeals) deceived him and obtained his signatures
on blank papers by giving impression that he will take sanction from
Assistant Charity Commissioner for all the change reports for earlier period.
Mr. Maner has further taken a stand that he is an old person who cannot
hear and see properly and Mr. Sable misused the signed blank papers and
played fraud. It is specific case of Mr. Maner that Mr. Sable has taken
disadvantage of Mr. Maner. This case of fraud and misrepresentation has
been considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner who has set aside the
acceptance of said CR and matter is remanded for fresh consideration.
9. In view of the specific case of fraud and misrepresentation of the
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
purported Applicant - Mr. Kondaji H. Maner in the said CR, the judgment of
Marutirao Bagal (supra) is squarely applicable, in view of what is observed
by this Court in paragraph 7 of the said Judgment, which reads as under :
"7. I have considered the rival submissions. There is nothing on
record to show that the notice of the Change Report
proceedings was issued to the Appellants or to any of the
members of the alleged outgoing Managing Committee. The
case of the Appellants is that the signatures of the Appellants on
the documents produced along with the Change Report are
forged and in fact the meeting dated 22nd April, 1996 was never
held. The allegation of the Appellants is that a false affidavit was
filed in support of the Change Report. As the case made out by
the Appellants was of the fraud and forgery committed by
respondent No. 1, it cannot be said that the issue involved in
this Appeal is merely academic. It is to be noted that as per
section 74 of the said Act of 1950 all enquiries under the said
Act of 1950 are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the
meaning of sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal
Code. After due inquiry is held by the Assistant Charity
Commissioner, if the Appellants succeed in establishing their
contention regarding the forgery and fraud, there will be further
consequences and action can be taken against the respondent
No. 1 under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, merely because the term of the Managing Committee
allegedly elected on 22nd April, 1996 has expired, it cannot be
said that the issue involved in this Appeal has become
academic."
[Emphasis supplied]
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
10. For the same reason found in above case, the issue involved in this
case cannot be called as merely academic. It is very similar to the facts of the
present case and therefore, I am of the considered view that though the
period in question of concerned CR (from 2007 to 2010) is already long
gone, due inquiry after remand is necessary.
11. It is material to note that order of this court dated 21.03.2025, pasted
in FA Nos. 1633, 1635, 1636, 1637 of 2012 was passed for change reports
of the year 1996 to 2007 about which there was no contest. However, In
present Appeals, there is serious contest as indicated above.
12. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have rightly pointed out that
even today the objection on behalf of Respondent No.7 in First Appeal No.
1638/2012 and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2&9 in First Appeal No. 1634
of 2012 is very much alive and they are seriously contesting the appeal.
Perusal of Trust constitution/scheme shows that there is minimum
requirement under Rule 6(11) to contest election or vote. In the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, the objection about entry of Appellant No.1 - Mr.
Sable and others in the Trust itself must be inquired into because according
to Respondents, he was not even a member of the Trust at the relevant time.
13. Appellant No.1 is the person against whom there are allegations of
misrepresentation and fraud by Mr. Kondaji Maner and apparently it is
Appellant No.1 at whose instance, the whole dispute has started.
Apparently, Appellant No.1 tried to push 15 persons as incoming
trustees/members by showing existing 15 trustees/members as outgoing.
14. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that this is a public charitable
trust purportedly working with an object of running educational institute. If
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
any party allegedly tries to misrepresent and play fraud upon trustee of old
age and tries to induct people in the managing committee or trusteeship by
adopting such tactics, it must be considered very seriously by the Authority
under the Public Trusts Act. It is unfortunate to see that a person who
himself claims to be a person of advanced age, who is unable to see and hear
properly, was continuing as Trustee and issuing signatures on blank papers.
Such person is involved in the running of trust which is conducting school
for the education of the next generation. The power of trusteeship seems to
be too sweet to let go for a trustee like Mr Kondaji H. Maner because,
despite not being able to see and hear properly, he gave signatures on blank
papers. It is absolutely sorry state of affairs, which must be seriously looked
into by the concerned authorities dealing with change reports.
15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and the nature of
dispute, in my view the impugned orders are legal and proper and there is
no perversity found. The Order dated 03.10.2007 was nothing but a
travesty of justice, being passed without issuing notice, without hearing the
concerned persons and passed in the most cryptic manner by concerned
Assistant Charity Commissioner, who was apparently very efficient in dealing
the CR in question within 6 days. Admittedly, the change was reported under
Application dated 28.09.2007 and order was passed on 03.10.2007. There
was weekend and Mahatma Gandhi Jayanti in between. Otherwise, it is our
common experience that change reports remain pending for years together.
A lot can be read between the lines here. Therefore said order has been
rightly set aside by the Joint Charity Commissioner, which order is rightly
confirmed by the learned District Judge.
16. The Appellants, despite there being clear finding by the Joint Charity
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
Commissioner about illegality in accepting the CR, have chosen to drag the
Trust in present litigation. In such disputes, school-staff suffers difficulty in
salary and scholarship disbursements. Record shows that one application
was required to be moved in 2008 for interim operation of bank account.
Record also shows that the appeals were dismissed for default sometime in
April 2025, which were restored. 13 years have passed pending these
appeals. Therefore, in my view, cost must be imposed on the Appellants.
17. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeals and same
are dismissed with costs. In the peculiar facts of this case, the Appellants are
directed to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of welfare of mentally
challenged students, to be paid to Prabodhini Trust (An Institution For the
care of Mentally Challenged, Reg. No. F 396 and F.C.R.A. No. 839005), Lane
no.2, Old Pandit Colony, Off Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422002, within a
period of 2 weeks from today.
18. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli Region, Sangli to reconsider
CR No. 2100/2007 on merits alongwith all the pending change reports of
the Trust, within a period of 6 months from presentation of this order.
Needless to mention that necessary effect of decision on CR No. 2100/2007
on subsequent pending change reports, will be considered by said Authority
in accordance with law.
19. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellants seeks continuation of
interim stay granted during pendency of these appeals. For the reasons
stated above and considering that an absolutely cryptic order passed without
issuing notice and due inquiry by the Assistant Charity Commissioner has
held up this matter for such a long time, the request for continuation of stay
FA.1634.2012 (J) C3.doc
is rejected.
20. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of
this order.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)
