High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 12072 OF 2024Akhileshwardas Raghunathdas Shri VaishnavVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And OthersMr. Gaurav Deshpande h/f Mr. A. A. Kokad, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D. b. Bhange, AGP for the respondent/StateCORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 12th NOVEMBER, 2024PER COURT :-1.This petition takes exception to the order passed by JointCharity Commissioner below Exhibit 24 in Revision No. 71/2024 (oldRevision No. 57/2022) whereby application filed by the respondent forjoining him as a party to the said proceeding came to be allowed.2.The petitioner is the persons who has filed a change report tojoin himself as a trustee of Shri Ram Mandir (Shri Balaji Mandir),Parbhani. It is a registered trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act(for short the ‘Act’) under registration No. A-191/Parbhani. The petitionerfiled proceedings under Section 22 of the Act. The said change reportcame to be rejected by order dated 28/03/2022. Against the saidrejection revision application came to be filed invoking such provisions ofSection 70A of the Act. During the pendency of the said proceeding an928.wp12072.24.odt1 of 5 application was moved vide Exhibit 13 by respondent claiming himself tobe person interested in the trust. The said application came to beallowed by impugned order, hence this petition.3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised issue withregard to the right of the person interested to be joined as a party in therevision proceeding under Section 70A of the Act. It is the contentionthat though there is power with the Enquiry Officer under Section 73A ofthe Act to join the person interested as a party to the proceeding, suchpower is absent with the revisional authority under Section 70A. Tosupport his submission he placed reliance on the judgment in case ofShri Satish Vasant Salpekar Vs. Ashwin Ghatate and Anr, 2018(1) ALLMR 250.4.There is no dispute about the fact that the trust is a templetrust. Section 2(10) of the Act defines person interested and in case of atemple trust the person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit ofattending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who isentitled to partake or is in that habit of partaking in the distribution ofgifts thereof is said to be person having interest. The respondent hereinhas specifically come out with a case that he visits the temple. Thedefinition of 2(10) of the Act is wide enough to cover the devotee who928.wp12072.24.odt2 of 5 visits the temple. Therefore, it can be safely said that the respondent isperson interested in the trust.5.In so far as submission made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner with regard to the powers of Revisional Authority to joinperson interested as a third party to the revisional proceeding isconcerned, it would be necessary to take into account provisions ofSection 73A and 70A of the Act for the said purpose. Section 73A of theAct enables the Enquiry Officer to join the person having interest in thepublic trust as a party to such proceeding. Undipustedly, the proceedingsherein are under Section 22 of the Act. The change report is an enquiryand therefore it was open for the Enquiry Officer to join personinterested as party to this proceeding. Now question arises as to whetherthere is any embargo created by Section 70A of the Act from joining suchperson interested by the Revisional Authority before whom the orderpassed in the enquiry of the change report is taken exception to.6.It would be relevant to refer to section 70A which reads thus:70A. Charity Commissioner to call for and examinerecords and proceedings before Deputy or AssistantCharity Commissioner.––(1)The Charity Commissioner may in any of the casesmentioned in section 70, either suo motu or onapplication call for and examine the record andproceedings of such case before any Deputy or Assistant928.wp12072.24.odt3 of 5 Charity Commissioner for the purpose of satisfyinghimself as to the correctness of any finding or orderrecorded or passed by the Deputy or Assistant CharityCommissioner and may either annul, reverse, modify orconfirm the said finding or order or may direct the Deputyor Assistant Charity Commissioner to make further inquiryor take such additional evidence as he may thinknecessary or he may himself take such additionalevidence:Provided that the Charity Commissioner shallnot record or pass any orders without giving the partyaffected thereby an opportunity of being heard.(2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall entitle the CharityCommissioner to call for and examine the record of anycase—(a)during the period in which an appeal under section 70can lie against any finding recorded by the Assistant orDeputy Charity Commissioner in such case, or(b)in which an order has been passed either in an appealmade under section 70 or 71 or on an application undersection 72.7.Perusal of the aforesaid provision does not indicate anyembargo being created for joining a person having in interest in thepublic trust as a party to such proceeding. Moreover, when in the originalproceeding the person having interest in the public trust can be joined asa party and in absence of any embargo been created for joining him inthe revisional proceedings, this Court is unable to concede to thesubmission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that theRevisional Authority has no such power. It is therefore held that personinterested under Section 2(10) of the Act, can seek impleadment inrevisional proceedings under Section 70A of the Act, wherein there is928.wp12072.24.odt4 of 5 challenge to any order passed under Section 22 of the Act.8.The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is concerned, paragraph 4 of the said judgment clearlyindicates that therein the person who wanted to join himself as a partyto the proceeding was not having interest in the trust at the relevanttime. The facts of the said case and present case totally differs as suchthe said judgment would not come to aid of the petitioner in any manner.9.Perusal of the impugned order indicates that learned JointCharity Commissioner has rightly taken into consideration the facts aswell as the provisions of Section 2(10) of the Act and since there is noperversity found in the said order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, nointerference is caused. Hence, petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp928.wp12072.24.odt5 of 5