High Court
Facts
wp-272-2025 judg.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2025Gajendra Ramchandra Biyani, Age: 46 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Biyani Nagar, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli...PetitionerVERSUS1.Assistant Charity Commissioner,Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.2.Mukesh Dharmaji Ingole,Age: 40 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Indra Nagar, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli.3.Jitendra Omprakash Biyani,Age: 50 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Biyani Nagar, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.4.Bansi Ashruba Ubale,Age: 75 Years, Occu. Business, R/o. Risala Bazar, Hingoli, Tq. Dist. Hingoli...Respondents ...Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.S. DargadAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A.D. Khot & Mr. V.B. KharatAGP for Respondent/State : Mr. K.B. Jadhavar... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : JUNE 20, 2025PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 15, 2025JUDGMENT :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of parties. wp-272-2025 judg.odt(2)2.The present writ petition takes exception to order dated23.09.2024 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nanded Region inMiscellaneous Application No.25 of 2024, thereby condoning delay inpreferring appeal against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2019passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Hingoli in Inquiry No.311of 2015.3.The petitioner herein filed proceeding vide InquiryNo.311 of 2015 before Assistant Charity Commissioner, Hingoli,under Section 50-A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 toframe a new scheme in respect of trust, namely Panchshil ShikshanPrasarak Mandal, Hingoli, bearing PTR No. F-28(P). It is submittedthat the trust was registered in the year 1962 under the provisions ofMaharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and Societies Registration Act,1860. The founder trustees, including the President and VicePresident, are died. Therefore, three trustees, who were alive, in ameeting dated 24.05.2015, decided to frame a new scheme of trustfor smooth and better administration in the interest of students takingeducation in school run by the trust. 4.The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, vide orderdated 09.12.2019, partly allowed the application and framed ascheme. While doing so, he directed removal of names of two personsfrom trusteeship as they were removed under section 41-D ofMaharashtra Public Trusts Act. So also, directed that a heir of
Legal Reasoning
wp-272-2025 judg.odt(6)10.The harmonious reading of Section 70 with Section 75depicts that for appeals filed under Chapter XI of the MPT Act,provisions of Limitation Act are made applicable. Therefore, forcomputing or complying the period of limitation, Section 5 can alsobe resorted to. In that view of matter, although appeal filed underSection 70, beyond 60 days would not be tenable, it would be subjectto provisions of Section 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.Once Section 5 of limitation is made applicable, the appellateauthority is empowered to condone the delay once sufficient cause ismade out. The Single Judge of this Court in the case of MansoorKhan Multani Vs. Nawab Kha Multani Others (Writ Petition No.11794of 2023 decided on 21.09.2023), dealt with aforesaid provisions andobserved as under :“11.On plain reading of Sections 70 and 75, it is clear thatprovisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are applicable to theappeals filed under Section 70.12.Merely because sub-section (2) of Section 70 starts withwords "No appeal shall be maintainable after the expiration ofsixty days....", it cannot be said that appeal filed beyond limitationof 60 days would not be maintainable at all.13.On conjoint reading of Sections 70 and 75 of theMaharashtra Public Trust Act, and Section 5 of Limitation Act, it isclear that, where appeal is preferred beyond prescribed period oflimitation, if appellant satisfies Court that he had sufficient causefor not preferring appeal or making application within suchperiod, appeal can be admitted.” wp-272-2025 judg.odt(7)11.In light of aforesaid exposition of law, this Court finds nomerit in contention of petitioner that the appeal is absolutely barredor not maintainable after expiry of sixty days or that appellate Courthas no power to condone the delay.12.The second contention raised on behalf of petitioner isthat there is inordinate delay of five years in filing the appeal andsame has been condoned without there being sufficient cause. Onperusal of reasons mentioned in Miscellaneous Application No.25 of2024, it is discernible that impugned order has been passed on09.12.2019. The limitation of 60 days expired on or about07.02.2020 as per sub-clause (2) of Section 70. Thereafter, sinceMarch 2020 till 28.02.2022, the limitation was freezed by SupremeCourt due to pandemic situation. Thereafter, according to applicant,he was not keeping good health for about six to eight months. Thenhe managed requisite funds, applied for certified copy on 01.02.2024and received the same on 29.02.2024 and then filed appeal alongwith application for delay condonation. It is submitted that impugnedorder passed under Section 50-A is grossly illegal and requiresinterference by condoning the delay. The said application wasopposed by the petitioner. The learned Joint Charity Commissionerobserved that reasons as stated in the application constitutessufficient cause. It is further observed that the Charity Commissioneris the guardian of trusts and has sufficient administrative powers. wp-272-2025 judg.odt(8)13.According to Mr. Dargad, once a party has lost its rightto have matter considered on merit because of his own inaction, thedelay has to be construed as deliberate. According to him, the Courtscannot delve into merits of the matter or equitable considerations.There cannot be quarrel over aforesaid prepositions, however inpresent case, fact remains that initial two years after passing ofimpugned order are covered by pandemic situation and further periodconsumed in illness and making financial arrangements. Thesestatements are not specifically controverted by the petitioner. 14.This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that presentmatter is arising out 50-A proceeding under the Maharashtra PublicTrusts Act. Framing of a scheme in relation to a public trust involvesthe interest of beneficiaries of trust and in such a situation, if the JointCharity Commissioner has felt it appropriate to exercise discretionand condone the delay, this Court would not entertain challenge inwrit jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 15.In result, there is no merit in the writ petition. WritPetition stands rejected.16.Rule discharged. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)Mujaheed//
Arguments
wp-272-2025 judg.odt(3)founder trustee removed under Section 41-D to be a member ofsociety under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and two of them will beoffice bearers/members of executive body of the trust. The trust shallbe governed under scheme at Annexure-A. 5.Respondent No.2 filed appeal under Section 70 ofMaharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, assailing order dated09.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner underSection 50-A(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Act. Since theappeal was delayed, an application was moved to condone the delayof almost five years. The learned Joint Charity CommissionerNanded, after hearing parties, allowed Miscellaneous ApplicationNo.25 of 2024 and condoned the delay subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand).6.Mr. S.S. Dargad, learned Advocate appearing forpetitioner vehemently submits that Section 70 (2) of the MaharashtraPublic Trusts Act specifically states that no appeal against orderpassed under Section 50-A shall be maintainable after expiration ofsixty days from passing of the order. Therefore, Joint CharityCommissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain time barred appeal orapplication to condone delay. As such, Joint Charity Commissionerexceeded its jurisdiction. He further submits that inordinate delay offive years in filing appeal is condoned in absence of sufficient cause.According to him, merits of the matter are not germane while wp-272-2025 judg.odt(4)considering delay application. It was for the Court to find out ifsufficient cause is made out and could not have condoned delay onequitable grounds. In support of his contention, he relies uponjudgment of Supreme Court in case of H. Guruswamy & Others Vs. A.Krishnaiah Since (D) by Lrs reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 54.7.Per contra, Mr. A.D. Khot, learned Advocate appearingfor respondent No.2, supports impugned order by inviting attention ofthis Court to Section 75 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Hesubmits that provisions of Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the IndianLimitation Act are made applicable to appeals under Chapter XI ofMaharashtra Public Trusts Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 70 willhave to be read harmoniously with Section 75. Therefore, JointCharity Commissioner is empowered to entertain appeal after expiryof sixty days, subject Section 5 of Limitation Act. 8.Having considered the submissions advanced by learnedadvocates appearing for respective parties, two questions emerged fordetermination before this Court. The first question is, as to whetherin light of provisions of Section 70 (2) of Maharashtra Public TrustsAct, an appeal against order passed by the Assistant CharityCommissioner could have been entertained after expiry of sixty days.Section 70 of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act reads thus : “70. Appeals from findings of Deputy or Assistant CharityCommissioner wp-272-2025 judg.odt(5)(1) An appeal [against the finding or order] of the Deputyor Assistant Charity Commissioner may be filed to the CharityCommissioner in the following cases :--(a) the finding [and order, if any,] under section 20;(b) the finding under Section 22;[(b-1) the findings under Section 22A;](c) the findings under Section 28;[(c-1) the order under section 41C;][(c-2) the order under section 50A;](d) the order under sub-section (3) of Section 54;((d-1) an order under sub-section (1) of section 79;](e) an order confirming or amending the record underSection 79AA.](2) No appeal shall be maintainable after the expirationof sixty days from the recording of the finding or the passing ofthe order, as the case may be.(3) The Charity Commissioner may, after hearing theappellant or any person appearing on his behalf for reasons to berecorded in writing either annul, reverse, modify or confirm thefinding or the order appealed against or he may direct theDeputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner to make furtherinquiry or to take such additional evidence as he may thinknecessary or he may himself take such additional evidence.”9.It is apparent that Clause (2) puts embargo to entertainappeal after expiry of period of sixty days from the date of recordingof finding or passing of order, as the case may be. However, Section75 of the Act reads thus :“75. LimitationIn computing the period of appeal under this Chapter, theprovisions of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act,1908, shall apply to the filing of such appeals.”