Dharmaji Girajappa Sonkawade vs Walandi Bahu Uddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Wlandi through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dharmaji Girajappa Sonkawade vs Walandi Bahu Uddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Wlandi through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Clarification that the applicant and the original petitioner shall be heard before any continuation of the Administrator's appointment is considered; the order dated 10/11/2025 was not recalled.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10/11/2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1006/2023 and Civil Application No.8708/2024 ought to be recalled, having regard to the setting aside of the Assistant Charity Commissioner's provisional acceptance of the change report and the continued appointment of the Administrator.

Court's answer

Recall of the order dated 10/11/2025 was found unnecessary because the Director of Education had already passed an order continuing the appointment of the Administrator for one year.

Ratio / Principle

The civil application was disposed of with a clarification that if continuation of the Administrator's appointment is considered, the applicant and the original petitioner shall be heard.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Application No. 3016 of 2026 (Aurangabad Bench) sought recall of the order dated 10/11/2025 in Writ Petition No.1006/2023 and Civil Application No.8708/2024, by which the Director of Education had been directed to re-look and decide the petitioner's claim for handing over management of the school within four weeks. The applicant contended that the Assistant Charity Commissioner's provisional acceptance of the change report under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act — a fact recited in that order — had been set aside by the Joint Charity Commissioner in Revision No.85/2024 (order dated 17/06/2025), and that the Director of Education had by order dated 05/12/2025 continued the Administrator's appointment at Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Takali for one year pending Change Inquiry No.326/2024. Holding recall unnecessary since the Administrator's appointment had already been continued, the Court disposed of the civil application, clarifying that the applicant and the original petitioner shall be heard before any continuation of the Administrator's appointment is considered.

2026:BHC-AUG:10745-DB

1 902-CA-3016-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3016 OF 2026 IN WP/1006/2023

DHARMAJI GIRAJAPPA SONKAWADE

VERSUS

WALANDI BAHU UDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL WALANDI, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Mr. Narendra D. Sonavane, Advocate for Applicant Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for Respondents/State Mr. A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for Respondents

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND

ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 12^th MARCH, 2026

PER COURT :

Heard.

The applicant seeks recall of the order dated 10/11/2025, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1006/2023 and Civil Application No.8708/2024.

It is the case of applicant that this Court disposed of the writ petition observing that ‘since there was dispute between the Management and it was uncertain as to in whose control the affairs of the school was, pursuant to the order passed by this Court the Education Officer appointed Administrator for Management of the affairs of the school . It was informed by learned advocate for petitioner that there is no dispute existed any longer, since one of

SVH

2 902-CA-3016-26.odt

the warring factions (then President) has passed away and in exercise of powers under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has accepted the Change Report provisionally’ . Thereafter it is observed that ‘ the order of acceptance of change report provisionally, was restored by this Court’ . In the changed scenario, this Court directed that ‘the Director of Education shall have a re-look of the matter and decide the petitioner’s claim for handing over petitioner the Management of the School’ . It is further directed that ‘ the Director of Education shall decide the petitioner’s claim on it’s own merits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order’ .

Learned advocate for applicant points out that the order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner accepting the change report is no more holding the field, as it was set aside by the Joint Charity Commissioner vide order dated 17/06/2025 passed in Revision No.85/2024. He submits that this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when the order dated 10/11/2025 is passed. He further points out that the Director of Education by order dated 05/12/2025 has continued appointment of the Administrator on Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Takali for a period of one year, as the Change Inquiry No.326/2024 is pending for final arguments.

Learned advocate for original petitioner submits that he was not instructed that the said decision is rendered in the revision. Therefore, he could not bring it to the notice of this Court.

SVH

3 902-CA-3016-26.odt

Be that as it may. Since the Director of Education has already passed order thereby continuing appointment of Administrator for one year, we do not find it necessary to recall the order dated 10/11/2025. The civil application is, therefore, disposed of by clarifying that in case the continuation of appointment of Administrator is being considered, the applicant and original petitioner shall be heard.

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

SVH