Allowed

Shri Markandeya Mandir Trust through Chairman/Authorized Representative Sudhakar R. Pathak v. Ramesh Dhondiram Jople and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jul 2022WP/7532/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the challenge to the Assistant Charity Commissioner's order allowing an intervener in a public trust proceeding, finding no illegality. However, the Court directed the Commissioner to dispose of the pending application within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent to dispose of the pending Change Report Application within six months.

Shri Markandeya Mandir Trust through… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2022)

Talwalkar

09-WP-7532-2021.doc

1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7532 OF 2021

¶6

Shri. Markandeya Mandir Trust Through …Petitioner Chairman/Authorized Representative Sudhakar R. Pathak

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Ramesh Dhondiram Jople & Anr. …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

Digitally signed PALLAVIMAHENDRAWARGAONKAR by PALLAVIMAHENDRAWARGAONKARDate:2022.07.19 18:31:13 +0530

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 19^th July, 2022

¶13

1 Heard Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe, learned Counsel appearing

¶14

for the Petitioner.

¶15

2 In this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶16

of India, the Petitioner which is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 has challenged

¶17

an order dated 20/8/2021 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik below Exh. 8 in Change Report Application No. 2643 of 2019.

¶18

Talwalkar 09-WP-7532-2021.doc 2/4

¶19

3 Mr. Dighe submitted that the Petitioner Trust filed Change Report Application No. 2643 of 2019 before Assistant Charity Commissioner for approval of change of trustees. When that application was being heard and at the final stage, the Respondent No. 1 filed an intervention application seeking that he be heard in the said change report and that application has been allowed by the impugned order. Mr. Dighe, learned Counsel submitted that the respondent No. 1 cannot be held to be the " person having interest" in the trust and therefore, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has committed illegality in allowing the intervention application. He submitted that if such application is allowed, then several persons will file intervention applications and the functioning of the Public Trust will be hampered.

¶20

4 Perusal of the impugned order shows that learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has taken into consideration provisions of section 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and section 2(10) of the said Act.

¶21

5 Section 2(10) of the said Act defines “person having interest” which reads as under:

Talwalkar

09-WP-7532-2021.doc

3/4

(10) “person having interest ”[includes]—(a) in the case of a temple, person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in that habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts thereof,..”

¶26

Section 73A of the said Act empowers Inquiry Officer to join persons

¶27

as party to proceedings. Section 73 A reads as under :

¶28

“ Section 73A Power of Inquiry Officer to join persons as party to proceedings. - In any proceedings under this Act, any person having interest in the public trust may be joined as a party to such proceedings on an application made by such person on such terms and conditions as the officer holding the inquiry may order.”

¶29

6 Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has considered

¶30

the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act as well as the contention raised by the Respondent No. 1 in his intervention application. The learned Charity Commissioner has opined that presence of intervener before the court in the pending proceeding is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the matter.

¶31

7 Mr. Dighe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶32

has not pointed out anything to show that the contention raised in the intervention application regarding Respondent No. 1 having interest in the temple is not tenable. A possible view of the matter has been taken

¶33

Talwalkar 09-WP-7532-2021.doc 4/4

¶34

by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court is warranted. However, it is clarified that the merits of the Change Report as also the merits of the objections raised by the Respondent No. 1 are concerned, contentions in that behalf are specifically kept open.

¶35

8 At this stage, Mr. Dighe states that Change Report Application is pending since 2019 and therefore, some time limit be granted for disposal of the Change Report Application. As Change Report Application is pending since 2019, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik is requested to dispose of the same within a period of 6 months from receipt of this order.

¶36

9 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶37

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

Shri Markandeya Mandir Trust through Chairman/Authorized Representative Sudhakar R. Pathak v. Ramesh Dhondiram Jople and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Markandeya Mandir Trust through Chairman/Authorized Representative Sudhakar R. Pathak v. Ramesh Dhondiram Jople and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santacruz (West) Education Society Thr. Trustee and Authorized Dr. Seema Gupta vs Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta

Tangaraj Palaniswamy Arudadiar vs Enquiry Officer and Anr.

Rajesh J Gupta Vs Manohar Mulchand Dorwani and Ors.

Vanita Yashwant Kangutkar and Ors. Vs Subhash Pandurang Nakhawa

Bindiya Harkisan Malkani and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

June Gavthan Maruti Devasthan , Pimplas, (Proposed Trust) and Ors. Vs the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region and Ors.