Dismissed¶47

Ananda Maruti Patil v. Joint Charity Commissioner Kolhapur Division and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2024PIL/55/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed; SIT direction refused as no FIR or complaint lodged; transfer of Application No. 1 of 2022 under s. 41D Maharashtra Public Trust Act 1950 refused, Petitioner not a party; devotee's remedy lies under s. 41B inquiry; trustees of Sadguru Shree Balumama Devalaya Aadmapur Trust PTR No. A-4541 Kolhapur; Article 226; Bombay HC, Upadhyaya CJ & Doctor J, 10-04-2024; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since no First Information Report had been lodged in relation to the alleged criminal acts, the question of constitution of a Special Investigating Team to investigate them did not arise. ¶29

Ananda Maruti Patil Vs Joint Charity Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should issue to the State Government to appoint a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to investigate alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust by Respondent Nos. 3 to 13, the trustees of the Charitable Trust arrayed as Respondent No. 2. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

Since no First Information Report had been lodged in relation to the alleged criminal acts, the question of constitution of a Special Investigating Team to investigate them did not arise.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The machinery of criminal law is set in motion either by an FIR or by a private complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908; in the absence of any FIR or criminal complaint, the prayer directing the State Government to constitute an SIT was highly misconceived.

¶30

Key takeaways

The Petitioner's prayer for transfer of the pending Section 41D proceedings is not tenable because the Petitioner is not a party to those proceedings.ratio¶36
If trustees of a charitable trust are found to be acting unlawfully, various statutory measures under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 are available to prevent them from doing so; proceedings under Section 41D of the Act had already been instituted.ratio¶37
Contrary to the Petitioner's locus submission, proceedings under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act can be initiated in four modes: (a) on an application of a trustee, (b) on an application by any person interested in the trust, (c) suo motu by the Charity Commissioner himself, and (d) on receipt of a report under Section 41B of the Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ. and Arif S. Doctor, J.; 10 April 2024) dismisses a public interest litigation under Article 226 filed by a devotee of Sadguru Shree Balumama Devalaya Aadmapur Trust (PTR. No. A-4541, Kolhapur). The Petitioner sought (i) a direction to the State Government to appoint an SIT to investigate alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust by Respondent Nos. 3 to 13, the trustees of the Trust (Respondent No. 2); (ii) transfer of Application No. 1 of 2022 pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur to another Joint Charity Commissioner; and (iii) restraint on the Respondents from acting as trustees pending disposal. Held: no FIR in relation to the alleged criminal acts had been lodged, and criminal-law machinery moves only through an FIR or a private complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, so the SIT prayer was highly misconceived; the transfer prayer was not tenable because the Petitioner was not a party to the Section 41D, Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 proceedings instituted by certain trustees against Respondent Nos. 3 to 13; and statutory remedies exist under the 1950 Act, Section 41D proceedings being initiable by a trustee's application, an interested person's application, suo motu action by the Charity Commissioner, or a report under Section 41B, so a devotee with grievances about the Trust's functioning may invoke Section 41B. Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date: 2024.04.12 10:33:41 +0530

¶2

1 405-PIL 55-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.55 OF 2024

¶5

Ananda Maruti Patil … Petitioner V/s. Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Nimesh Mehta, Ms. Neera Chauhan for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP, Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, Ms. A. A. Nadkarni, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶9

DATE : 10^th APRIL 2024

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This Public Interest Litigation Petition, under Article

¶12

226 of the Constitution of India, has ostensibly been filed in

¶13

public interest by the Petitioner with the following prayers :-

¶14

“a. Direction may be given to the state Government to appoint SIT (Special Investigating Team) for cheating, criminal breach of trust conducted by the Respondent no.3 to 13 while performing the functions of the Respondent no.2 in the interest of principle of natural justice;

¶15

1 of 6

¶16

Mugdha

¶17

2 405-PIL 55-2024.doc

¶18

b. Be pleased to pass suitable order by transferring the Application bearing No. 1 of 2022 pending before the Respondent No.1-Joint Charity Commissioner before any other Joint Charity Commissioner to get the fair trial to the complainant and the devotees of Sadguru Shree Balumama Devalaya Aadmapur Trust” PTR. No. A-4541 (Kolhapur) to get justice in the interest of principle of natural justice;

¶19

c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Respondents, and/or its servants and agents may be restrained from acting as the trustee of the said trust i.e. Sadguru Shree Balumama Devalaya Aadmapur Trust” PTR. No. A-4541 (Kolhapur) in the interest of devotees of the said temple;

¶20

d. Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above;

¶21

e. Costs of the present petition; and

¶22

f. Such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.”

¶23

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶24

So far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent Nos.3 to 13, who are the trustees of a Charitable Trust, which has been arrayed as Respondent No.2 in this Petition, have committed various criminal acts such as cheating and criminal

¶25

2 of 6

¶26

Mugdha

¶27

3 405-PIL 55-2024.doc

¶28

breach of trust and as such a Special Investigating Team (“SIT”) be directed to be constituted for investigating such criminal acts.

¶29

However, what we notice is that no First Information Report (“FIR”) in relation to the alleged criminal acts has been lodged and, accordingly the question of constitution of the SIT for investigating any such alleged criminal act does not arise.

¶30

The machinery of criminal law is put to motion either by way of filing FIR or by filing a private complaint under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908. However, in the present matter, in absence of any FIR or criminal complaint, the question of investigation of any crime does not arise. The prayer made for issuance of direction to the State Government to constitute a SIT is, therefore, highly misconceived.

¶31

The other prayer made in this Public Interest Litigation that a direction be issued to transfer the Application

¶32

3 of 6

¶33

Mugdha

¶34

4 405-PIL 55-2024.doc

¶35

No.1 of 2022 pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur to any other Joint Charity Commissioner, to ensure a fair trial of the complaint and to protect the interest of the devotees of the Charitable Trust.

¶36

On a query, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the proceedings under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (“the said Act”) have been instituted by certain trustees against Respondent Nos.3 to 13, however, the Petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings. Thus, seeking a prayer by the Petitioner for transfer of any proceedings, when Petitioner is not a party to such proceedings, in our opinion, will not be tenable.

¶37

As regards prayer clause (c), we may observe that in case trustees of the Charitable Trust are found to be acting unlawfully, various statutory measures are available to prevent such trustees from acting unlawfully under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The proceedings under Section 41D of the said Act have already been instituted. The

¶38

4 of 6

¶39

Mugdha

¶40

5 405-PIL 55-2024.doc

¶41

learned counsel for the Petitioner however states that the Petitioner will have no locus to institute such proceedings under Section 41D of the said Act for the reason that such proceedings can be instituted only on the application of trustees or any person interested in the Trust and since it is difficult for the Petitioner to establish that he is person interested in the Trust, if he makes any application under Section 41D of the said Act, the same may not be entertained.

¶42

The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is also highly misconceived for the reason that the proceedings under Section 41D of the said Act can be initiated by four modes, (a) on an application of a trustee, (b) on an application by any person interested in the trust, (c) suo motu by the Charity Commissioner himself and (d) on receipt of a report under Section 41B of the said Act. Section 41B of the said Act provides for institution of inquiry, which can be instituted by the Charity Commissioner on receipt of a complaint having interest in respect of Public Trust. The Petition states that this Petition has been filed by the devotee of the Charitable

¶43

5 of 6

¶44

Mugdha

¶45

6 405-PIL 55-2024.doc

¶46

Trust/Respondent No.2 and accordingly if he has any grievance regarding functioning of the Trust, he can always take recourse to under Section 41B of the said Act.

¶47

For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the present Public Interest Litigation Petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶48

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶49

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶50

6 of 6

¶51

Mugdha

Ananda Maruti Patil v. Joint Charity Commissioner Kolhapur Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda Maruti Patil v. Joint Charity Commissioner Kolhapur Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Narasinghiah Gowda vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

Minakshi Mahadev Doiphode Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Charan Bhatt Vs Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation Thr Its Municipal Commissioner

Rajat Banerjee vs City and Industrial Development and Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (Cidco Ltd)

Karmyogi Swargiya Dr Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar Taluka Eksangh Kruti Samiti Nilanga through vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rajkumar Alias Ambadas Vasantrao Deshmukh and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Abhinav Bharat Congress through Pankaj K Phadnisffd vs State of Maharashtra

Mrunal Shantaram Dholepatil vs the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission and Ors.

Smt. Amarjeet Kaur W/O Joginder Singh Vs Shri Kartik Bhatt

Sukumar Bhoja Shetty Vs Gunapal Bhoja Shetty

Yogesh Mohnlal Rohira vs Mohanlal Gurmukhdas Rohira (Deceased)

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs Vijay Yadav and Anr.

Neo Growth Credit Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sunshine