Dhairyasheel Shivajirao Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with learned Advocate Mr. Bhalchandra Mote. The contesting parties are Respondent Nos.4 and 5, represented by learned Advocate Mr. Chetan Patil and Mr. Prashant Bhavake, respectively.

¶15

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date: 2026.06.16 17:42:05 +0530

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

901-WP-9322-2025 (C).doc

¶18

A contrary claim seeking entitlement to run the Trust has been

¶19

made by the warring parties. Adjudication is sought on the basis of allegations and counter-allegations before the Court in the present Petition. No purpose whatsoever will be served in adjudicating the dispute between the parties when the statutory Change Reports filed by the either parties qua the other side challenging the appointment of the parties to the Trust are pending before the office of the Charity Commissioner. The Competent Authority i.e. the Assistant Charity Commissioner is presently seized with such Change Reports filed in the last three years after dispute having arisen between the parties. The first two change reports in point of time are Change Report Nos.365 of 2023 and 366 of 2023 which are filed by the Petitioners. Subsequently, Change Report No.1246 of 2025 is filed by the Respondent No.5. There are certain allegations and counter allegations made, but we need not detain ourselves with adjudicating the same, since they will be substantively part and parcel of the submissions before the Competent Authority for determination of the Change Report.

¶20

A very recent Change Report is filed by Respondent No.4 bearing No.63 of 2026 challenging the ouster of Respondent No.5 as President and appointment of new person in his place which is

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

901-WP-9322-2025 (C).doc

¶23

strongly refuted by Respondent No.5. The inter se rights and claims of the parties will necessarily have to be determined in the said proceedings. Such determination would require a statutory inquiry under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, in accordance with law.

¶24

In this view of the matter, the Competent Authority, namely, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, is directed to hear and decide the aforesaid four change reports together, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and to pass a speaking / reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶25

If there are any other pending change reports between the parties pending before the Charity Commissioner’s Office which have not been brought to the notice of this Court, the same shall also be taken on board by the Assistant Charity Commissioner for adjudication and decision along with the four aforementioned Change Reports.

¶26

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶27

Needless to mention that the Competent Authority shall determine the change reports strictly in accordance with law and

¶28

3 of 4

¶29

901-WP-9322-2025 (C).doc

¶30

without being influenced by any of the pleadings made in the present Petition or by this order.

¶31

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶32

The parties shall appear before the Charity Commissioner along with a server copy of this order downloaded from the website of the High Court of Bombay tomorrow i.e. 17.06.2026 at 11:00 a.m. and the Competent Authority shall take cognizance of the same

¶33

and determine the appropriate schedule for the hearing and disposal of the change reports.

¶34

[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]

¶35

Sajakali

¶36

4 of 4

Dhairyasheel Shivajirao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhairyasheel Shivajirao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gundabai Mahimanya Kale vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Distrcit Collector Sangli and Anr.

Destiny Builders and Developers Thr Its Authorized Signatory vs Union of India Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Amar Jagannath Chitre vs Commissioner of Transport Motor Vehicles Dept. and Ors.

Lata Mahadev Jadhav Alias Lata Kakaso Ghodake vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education Dept and Ors.

Destiny Builders and Developers Thr Its Authorized Signatory vs Union of India Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Dr Bharat Bajarang Ballal vs the Vice Chancellor and Ors.