Abhijit Givind Wanjari and Others vs Swati Amar Wanjari and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Abhijit Givind Wanjari and Others vs Swati Amar Wanjari and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; the Joint Charity Commissioner's order dated 31.01.2024 stands undisturbed and the change report is to be decided afresh by the Assistant Charity Commissioner; all points of both parties kept open; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner ought to have recorded reasons while allowing the revision under Section 70-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and remanding the change report to the Assistant Charity Commissioner. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

As the change report is to be decided afresh, the petitioner would get a sufficient opportunity to put forth all his grievances before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, who will decide the matter afresh.

Key takeaways

The Court found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.ratio¶¶15
All the points of both the parties were kept open and no order as to costs was made; the parties' contentions, including the plea that reasons ought to have been recorded for the remand, were thus left undecided by this Court.obiter¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur (Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.; 07-10-2025; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:10462) dismissed Writ Petition No.2357 of 2024 filed by Abhijit Govind Wanjari and others challenging the order dated 31.01.2024 of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in Revision Application No.32/2020, whereby the revision filed by respondent No.1 under Section 70-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 was allowed and the matter — Change Report No.1926/2018, earlier decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 29.05.2018 — was remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for fresh decision within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The Court held that since the change report was to be decided afresh, the petitioner would get sufficient opportunity to put forth all grievances before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, and therefore found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner. All points of both parties were kept open; no order as to costs.

2025:BHC-NAG:10462

1 62-WP-2357-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2357 OF 2024

Abhijit Govind Wanjari and Others Vs.

Swati Amar Wanjari and Others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A.G. Mate, AGP for the Respondent/State. Ms. Vidya Umale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

CORAM: SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J . DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2025

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in Revision Application No.32/2020, whereby the revision filed by the present respondent No.1 under Section 70-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 came to be allowed.

Learned Joint Charity Commissioner by allowing the revision, remanded back the matter to the Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide the change report within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, invited attention of this Court, to the order passed by the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner and submitted that the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner ought to have recorded the reasons for allowing the revision while remanding back the matter to the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

2 62-WP-2357-2024.odt

The respondent No.1 who filed a revision under Section 70-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 wherein, she has contended that the reporting trustee namely Abhijeet Wanjari though posing himself as a reporting trustee was not a managing committee member of the trust and was not even a simple member of the trust till the year 2018. Even thereafter, he was not enrolled as a member of the trust and alongwith the Vice President, he prepared false and fabricated proceeding and took advantage of the respondent No.1’s mental condition. When the husband of respondent No.1 i.e. Amar Wanjari died on 09.04.2018, and the reporting trustee had been to the house of respondent No.1 and took with him the record of trust and the keys of Mantra Celebration Hall. No resolution was made to incorporate reporting trustee Abhijit Wanjari and Smita Wanjari as simple member of the trust. The respondent No.1 for the first time got knowledge of the change report No.1926/2018 in the month of August, 2019, which was already decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 29.05.2018. She immediately applied for the certified copy and the change report was challenged. Therefore, considering the allegations made by the respondent No.1 and more particularly when the respondent No.1 was Secretary of the Trust at that relevant time and as per provisions of the trust deed, the Secretary ought to have called meeting and this legal issue should have been answered and therefore, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly interfered with the order

3 62-WP-2357-2024.odt

passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and set-aside the order of accepting the change report.

Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. More particularly, as the change report is to be decided afresh and the petitioner would get a sufficient opportunity to put-forth all his grievance before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, who will decide the matter afresh. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . All the points of both the parties are kept open. No order as to costs.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE J.)

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁