Dist. Latur....RESPONDENTSMr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the v. Barde h
Facts
Ethape( 1 ) WP-3560-2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 3560 OF 2025Suryakant Bhagwanrao PatilAge: 83 years, Occu. Agril.All R/o. Kelgaon, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur....PETITIONER VERSUS1. Prakash Pralhadrao Atargekar@ Kulkarni, Age: 71 years,Occu. Retired, R/o. Kelgaon,Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.2. Assistant Charity Commissioner-ILatur.3. Omprakash Mallikarjun Mitkari,Age: 51 years, Occu. Agril.R/o. Kelgaon, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.4. Noor Bismilla Patel,Age: 63 years, Occu. Agril.R/o. Kelgaon, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.5. Manoj Madhukar Patil,Age: 46 years, Occu. Agril.R/o. Kelgaon, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.At present R/o. Krishna Medical,Shivaji Chowk, Nilanga,Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.
Legal Reasoning
Ethape( 7 ) WP-3560-2025far as maintainability is concerned, he relies upon the judgment of thisCourt in the case of Anand s/o Sheshrao Bharose Vs. Rahul VedprakashPatil and Ors.1 and Bapuro Shankar Rathod Vs. The Joint CharityCommissioner, Latur passed by this Court in Writ petition No.7949 of2024 on 2nd August 2024. He further submits that the application foracceptance of provisional change report needs to be tagged alongwithmain change report. It cannot be filed subsequently. In the present case,meeting was not held by out-going body. The election is to be conductedby the out-going body alone. There was even application filed underSection 41-A of the MPT Act in which direction was issued. However, thesaid direction is also not followed. No meeting was held to hold theelection. The meeting needs to be held as per constitution of the Trust.The learned ACC had failed to consider the objection. Even prima faciecase was not made out to accept the change report. The de-factocommittee of the trust was looking after the affairs of the trust whichcould have held the election. He relied on the Rule 7 of the CommitteeRules and the judgment of this Court in the case of Anand s/o Sheshrao12022 (2) All.M.R. 558 Ethape( 8 ) WP-3560-2025Bharose (supra). 7.In the case of Qidwai Education and Cultural Society (supra), theDivision Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench, considered the provisionof Section 22(2) of the MPT Act. It is held that, this provision providesfor mechanism for provisional acceptance of the change report. It is heldthat the legislature has specifically brought the amendment by insertingsub-Section (2) of Section 22 of the MPT Act considering that thedecision of change report takes long time. In that case, the learned DCCwas directed to pass provisional order in terms of amended section 22 ofthe said Act. It is seen that, it was still kept open for the authorities toconsider the provisional acceptance. No positive direction was givendirecting to accept the change report. 8.In the case of Banjara Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (supra), thisCourt also held that after acceptance of provisional change report, if noobjections are received, the said provisional change becomes final. It isheld that for provisional acceptance no specific application is required.In the case of Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti (supra), this Court had
Arguments
Ethape( 2 ) WP-3560-20256. Rangrao Dinkarrao Patil,Age: 53 Yrs. Occu. Agril.7. Devrao Nagorao ChavanAge: 63 Yrs. Occu. Agril.8. Keshav Bhau KambleAge: 63 yrs. Occu. Agril.9. Vaibhav Vijaykumar PatilAge: 44 Yrs. Occu. Agril.10. Namdev Baliram Parale,Age: 63 Yrs. Occu. Agril.11. Bhaskar Suryakant Patil,Age: 42, Yrs. Occu. Agril.12. Dayanand Nivruttirao Gaware,Age: 43 Yrs. Occu. Agril,Res Nos. 6 to 13 r/o. Kelgaon, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur....RESPONDENTSMr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. P. V. Barde h/f Mr. Mukund S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1.Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent No.2-State. Mr. Amar D. Soman, Advocate for Respondent No.4.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:7th APRIL 2025PRONOUNCED ON:24th APRIL 2025 Ethape( 3 ) WP-3560-2025ORDER :-1.Heard Mr. Thombre, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr.Barde, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, Mr. Soman, learnedAdvocate for Respondent No.4 and Mr. Jadhavar, learned AGP forRespondent-State.2.The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 7thFebruary 2026 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner (forshort “JCC”), Latur Region, Latur in Revision Petition No.96 of 2024allowing the revision petition filed by the present Respondent No.1 andsetting aside the order passed by the learned Assistant CharityCommissioner in Change Report No. 251 of 2024. The learned ACC byway of said order had accepted the change report provisionally.3.The facts, in short, are that the petitioner and other respondentsare the members of one Trust namely, Bharatiya Sanskruti PoshakSanstha, Kelgaon, Taluka, Nilanga Dist. Latur. The petitioner filedChange Report under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act (forshort “MPT Act”). In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an Ethape( 4 ) WP-3560-2025application below Exh.12 praying for accepting the change reportprovisionally. The respondent No.1 filed objection to Exh.12. It is thecase of the Respondents that, the alleged meeting in which the electionis held itself is not held. The record of the said meeting is preparedfalsely. Earlier the elections were held for the term of 2017-2022 and thechange was accepted on 1st January, 2019. After the term of 2017-2022body expired, there is no election held. The application is already filedunder Section 41A of the MPT Act, praying for direction to hold theelection. It is stated in the said objection that it is necessary to hear thechange report itself finally but the petitioner has not given any evidence.4.The learned ACC by order dated 30th July 2024, allowed theapplication Exh. 12 accepting the change report provisionally anddirected the parties to give evidence. It is also directed that no policydecision be taken by the new elected committee without priorpermission of learned ACC. This order came to be challenged byRespondent No.1 by filing revision. The revision is filed on 9th August2024, mainly on the ground that, no any election is held after 2022. Ethape( 5 ) WP-3560-2025There is already application filed under Section 41A of the MPT Actseeking direction to hold the election. The meeting which is shown to beheld itself is not held etc. The learned JCC allowed the revision and setaside the provisional acceptance of the change report. The petitioner is,therefore, before this Court. 5.Mr. Thombre, the learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuouslysubmits that the revision itself was not maintainable in view of Section17-A(2) of the M.P.T. Act. The revision has to be filed within period oflimitation. On this ground alone, the revision ought not to have beenentertained. When the change report is filed, Section 22(2) of the M.P.T.Act, enables the learned ACC to accept the report provisionally. Theapplication Exh.22 was filed on 18th June 2022, the Respondent objectedthe said on 18th July 2024. The learned ACC has considered the materialplaced before him. It is held that the compliance is made by thepetitioner and it is only thereafter he has passed the order. The onlyground taken in the revision was that, the meeting was invalid. Lookingto the language of Section 22(2) of the MPT Act, what is required is Ethape( 6 ) WP-3560-2025filing of application for provisional acceptance. At this stage, the learnedACC need not go into the question of validity of the body holding theelection etc. He relies upon the following judgments:(i)Qidwai Education and Cultural Society Vs. The State ofMaharashtra passed by this Court at Nagpur Bench in WritPetition No.3296-1365-1366 of 2020 on 27th April 2022.(ii)Banjara Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Mukinda NanduChavan and Ors. passed by this Court in Writ PetitionNo.11141 of 2022 on 14th November 2022.(iii)Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors. passed by this Court in Writ PetitionNo.11297 of 2014 on 8th April 2015. He thus, prays for quashing and setting aside the order passed inthe revision petition. 6.Learned Advocate Mr. Barde holding for Mr. M. S. Patil, thelearned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 submits that, proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 22 of the MPT Act, is enabling provision givingpower to the learned ACC to accept the change report. It is, however, thediscretion of the learned ACC to accept the change report or not? Thelanguage shows that it is not mandatory to accept the change report. So
Decision
Ethape( 9 ) WP-3560-2025considered Section 22 of the Act. However there sub-Section (2) ofSection 22 was not in statute book then and therefore, the judgmentneed not be considered. 9.So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for therespondent in the case of Anand Sheshrao Bharose (supra) is concerned,the court had considered the remedy of revision under Section 70(A) ofthe Act. It is held that the remedy of revision under section 70(A) isefficacious remedy available to the petitioner. It was held that the writpetition is not maintainable. If the revision is preferred, the revisionalauthority is entitled to go into evidence undertaking and even scrutiny ofdisputed fact can be done. The writ petition is, therefore, notentertainable. It was held that even the order passed under Section22(2), would be squarely covered by Rule 72 and thus, the revision isheld to be maintainable. 10.In the case of Bapurao Rathod (supra), this Court also held thatsub-Section (2) of Section 22 power is given to the authorities to acceptthe change provisionally within 15 working days. If no objection is Ethape( 10 ) WP-3560-2025received to provisional acceptance then the same report becomes final. Itis further held that an opportunity of hearing can be given to the parties.11.Considering all above aspects, this Court finds that the revisionwas very much maintainable. This Court does not find any force in thesubmissions of learned Advocate for the petitioner that the revision wasnot maintainable. The revisional authority has thus rightly entertainedthe revision. The revisional Court held that, since 2022 to 2024 therewas no valid committee looking after the trust. It is rightly held that,even for provisional acceptance, prima face case must be made out. Therevisional Court rightly considered that the managing committee wasde-facto trustees and this fact is admitted by the present petitioner. Rule5 of the Trust does not vest any discretion in the members to convenethe meeting for the election after expiry of the tenure of the trustees. Fordoing so, it was necessary for them to approach the learned ACC and toseek directions to hold the election. On facts, it is held that there was noservice of notice on all members of the trust. There was no declarationof election program. Even electoral role was not published. Ethape( 11 ) WP-3560-202512.Considering all this material prima facie, the revisional authorityhas rightly accepted the case of respondent No.1 and allowed therevision. This court thus finds that, no illegality is committed by therevisional authority. Writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and thesame is rejected. Hence, the following order: ORDER(i)Writ petition stands dismissed.(ii)No order as to costs. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]