High Court
Legal Reasoning
1wp-13429-2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 13429 OF 2024Pramod S/o Murlidharrao Khedkar,Age – 49 years, Occ – Agriculturist &Ex – Municipal Councillor,R/o H.No. 174, Block No.12,Labour Colony, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded.…..PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Principal Secretary,Urban Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.2.The Collector, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded.3.Kala Mandir Trust Nanded,Through its authorized President,Sheetal W/o Santosh Bhalke,Age – 46 years, Occ – Medical Practitioner,R/o Opp. DSP Office, Vazirabad, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded.4.Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation,Nanded, Through its Commissioner,Municipal Corporation, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded.5.Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation,Nanded, Through its Administrator,Municipal Corporation, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
Legal Reasoning
2wp-13429-20246.M/s Shikhar Infra (SPV),Through its Partner,Sanman Buildcon PVT, LTD.Through its Authorized Signatory,Siddhant S/o Satish Maheshwari,Age – Major, Occ – Business,R/o Shop No. 39, 1st Floor,Sanman Prestige, Station Road,Nanded – 4316017.Sanman Buildcon PVT LTD.Through its Authorized Signatory,Satish S/o Purushottam Maheshwari,Age – Major, Occ – Business,R/o Shop No. 39, 1st Floor,Sanman Prestige, Station Road,Nanded.…..RESPONDENTS______________________________________________________Mr. V. D. Salunke, Senior Adv. i/b Mr. Y. R. Barhate, Advocatefor the PetitionerMr. V. M. Chate, AGP for respondent-StateMr. G. A. Gadhe, Advocate for Respondent no.3Mr. S. A. Mulla h/f Mr. R. H. Ingale, Advocate for Respondentnos.4 and 5Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Adv. i/b Mr. A. A. Fulfagar,Advocate for respondent nos.6 and 7______________________________________________________CORAM :ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. RESERVED ON :02ND JULY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON:08TH JULY,2025JUDGMENT :-.The respondent no.3 in the present petition namely;Kala Mandir Trust, Nanded is a Public Trust, registered underthe Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. 3wp-13429-20242.Vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2023, passed inapplication no.09 of 2023, the learned Joint CharityCommissioner, Aurangabad region Aurangabad, grantedpermission to the respondent no.3 to enter intoConcessionaire (Development) Agreement and LeaseAgreement with respect to its property bearing MunicipalNo.2-12-220 (CTS No.3419) admeasuring 9757 Sq. meters,situated at Vazirabad, Nanded for a period of thirty years withSanman Buildcon Private Limited. The said order is passedunder Section 36(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act,1950. The trust deed provides that the properties of the trustshall be utilized mainly for the furtherance of art, culture,literature, government functions and for other purposes to beunanimously decided by the trustees.3.Apart from the said objectives, which are mentioned inthe deed of trust deed 21.10.1957, the respondent no.3 hasalso framed rules and regulations for regulating its activities.Rules and Regulations provide that there shall be ProgramSub-Committee dedicated to look after the fields of i) musicand dance, ii) drama, iii) literature and iv) drawing. The 4wp-13429-2024Rules and Regulations provide that the Program Sub-Committee shall comprise of five to fifteen persons to benominated by the trustees from the trustees and respectablecitizens of Nanded.4.The present petition is filed challenging the judgmentand order dated 23.03.2023, granting permission to enter intothe aforesaid agreement.5.The petitioner is admittedly not a member or a trusteeof the respondent no.3/Trust. The petitioner states that he isa resident of Nanded and has keen interest in thedevelopment of Nanded City. He has stated that he is ExMunicipal Councilor.6.The respondent no.3 has filed reply in the matter inwhich, amongst other grounds, a preliminary objection israised with respect to locus-standi of the petitioner tochallenge the impugned order. The petitioner has therefore,filed a rejoinder, wherein he has stated that he has locus-standi to challenge the order, since he is an Ex-Councilor anda resident of Nanded, who has vested interest in protectingproperties of Public Trusts. He claims that he is not a 5wp-13429-2024stranger, but a stakeholder in development of Nanded City.He has claimed that the trust property is a public asset andbeing a resident of Nanded, he is aggrieved by the misuse ofthe property of Public Trust.7.On these averments, the petitioner contends that he haslocus-standi to challenge the impugned order.8.It will be pertinent to mention here that initially, thepetitioner had filed a petition in public interest being PublicInterest Litigation No.(Stamp No.14116 of 2024). The saidpetition was not entertained vide order dated 10.10.2024,holding that challenge to an order under Section 36 of theMaharashtra Public Trusts Act permitting a public trust to dealwith its property, cannot be allowed to be challenged underthe garb of a PIL. The registration of PIL was refused videsaid order dated 10.10.2024, observing that the petitioner wasfree to take resort to appropriate remedies as were availableto him in law.9.In this backdrop, the petitioner has filed the presentpetition, challenging the said judgment and order passedunder Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. 6wp-13429-202410.The respondent no.3 had raised two preliminaryobjections i) that an order under Section 36 of theMaharashtra Public Trusts Act is an administrative order andtherefore, the petition would not lie before a Single Judge andii) the petitioner does not have any locus to challenge theorder impugned in the present petition.11.As regards the objection pertaining to maintainability ofpetition before Single Judge, the said objection was given upin view of Full Bench judgment in the matter of ShaileshDevelopers and Others Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner,Maharashtra, wherein it is held that inquiry contemplatedunder Section 36 of the Act is a judicial inquiry. It is expresslyheld that while dealing with an application under Section 36of the Act, the Charity Commissioner performs a judicialfunction. Since, the function performed is a judicial function,the order passed under Section 36 will be amenable tojurisdiction of a Single Judge in view of Chapter XVII, Rule 18of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules.12.As regards the locus of the petitioner, Mr. V. D. Salunkelearned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the 7wp-13429-2024aforesaid pleadings in the petition and affidavit to contendthat it cannot be said that the petitioner does not have locusto challenge the impugned order. The learned Counsel for thepetitioner argued that having regard to aims and objectives ofthe trust, which is to work in the fields of art, culture andliterature, the petitioner, who is resident of Nanded and aformer Councilor will be a ‘beneficiary’ within the meaning ofSection 2(2A) and also a ‘person having interest’ within theSection 2(10) of the Act. His contention is that the aims andobjectives of the trust include to hold cultural events forpublic at large and as such being a resident of Nanded City,the petitioner is beneficiary of the trust and therefore, aperson having interest in the trust. He also contends thatbeing a person of repute and a resident of Nanded, he is alsoeligible and entitled for being considered for being nominatedon the various Sub-Committees constituted as per Rules andRegulations of the respondent no.3/Trust and on this ground,also it must be held that he is a beneficiary and person havinginterest in the trust.13.Per contra, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Counsel 8wp-13429-2024appearing for the respondent nos.6 and 7 contends thatmerely, because the petitioner is a resident of Nanded and aformer Councilor, will not mean that he is a person havinginterest in the Trust or beneficiary of the Trust. He furtherstates that it is not even the case of the petitioner that he is orwas ever associated with the activities of the Trust or eventhat he is an artist, who has utilized the facilities of the Trustfor conducting cultural events, shows etc. The learned SeniorCounsel contends that petitioner is in no way concerned withthe affairs of the trust and is unnecessarily inter-meddling inthe matter. He has placed reliance on judgments of this Courtin the matter of Ramdas Club Akola Vs. Mayur Dilip Vikheand Others (LPA No.49 of 2010) decided on 21.12.2013 andMaganlal Himmatram Barfiwala and Others Vs. MridangrajHiralal Suchak reported in 2019 DGLS (Bom) 166.14.In the matter of Ramdas Club, Akola, the petitionershad filed a petition challenging the order granting permissionto sell the property of a trust. The petitioners, who hadchallenged the order granting permission were using theproperty of the trust and on that ground, they claimed to be 9wp-13429-2024persons having interest in the trust. An objection was raisedwith respect to the locus-standi of the petitioners. In thiscontext, it is held that mere superfluous averments made inthe petition cannot give rise to inference that the petitionerswere persons having interest in the trust. It is held thatmerely because the petitioners were utilizing property of thetrust will not mean that they are persons having interest in thetrust unless some legal right to use property is established.Holding that the petitioner had failed to make out any suchlegal right, it was held that the petitioners could not be said tobe ‘aggrieved persons’ to challenge the permission grantedunder Section 36 of the Act.15.The decision in the matter of Maganlal Barfiwala,pertains to an application under Section 41(D) of the Act,which provides for suspension, removal and dismissal oftrustees. The petitioner in the said matter was a public trustregistered under the Act. It was established for upbringing oforphan children. The trust was managed by members of ShriHalai Lohana community. Respondent in the matter wasgrandson of one Late Seth Maganlal Barfiwala who was settlor 10wp-13429-2024of the trust. He had filed an application under Section 41(D)of the Act, praying for removal of the trustees. An objectionwas raised regarding his locus to maintain application underSection 41(D) of the Act. It may be stated that an applicationunder Section 41(D) can be filed either by a trustee or anyother ‘person having interest’ in the trust. The question thatfell for consideration was whether the respondent who hadfiled application under Section 41(D) was a ‘person havinginterest’ in the trust. In this backdrop, while dealing withdefinition of the terms ‘beneficiary’ and ‘a person havinginterest’ it is held as under:64.The expression “person having interest”,in case of any other public trust which includesany trustee or beneficiary will have to be readwith the definition of beneficiary under section2(2-A) inserted by 2017 amendment whichprovides that the beneficiary means any personentitled to any of the benefit as per the objectsof the trust explained in the Trust Deed or in thescheme made as per the said Act and theconstitution of the trust and no other person. Itis thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that theperson who claims to be a beneficiary for thepurpose of satisfying in the definition of “personhaving interest” under Section 2(10)(e) of thesaid MPT Act and for the purpose of invokingsection 41-D of the MPT Act has to be a personhimself entitled to any of the benefits as per theobjects of the trust explained in the Trust Deedor the scheme made as per the provisions of the 11wp-13429-2024MPT Act and the constitution of the trust and noother person.66.A perusal of the impugned order passedby the learned Joint Charity Commissionerclearly indicates that the learned Joint CharityCommissioner has considered the respondent asa person having interest in the trust undersection 2(10) of the MPT Act as well as thebeneficiary under Section 2(2-A) of the MPT Acton the ground that he is a member of Shri HalaiLohana Mahajan Community and the grand-sonof the settlor. In my view, this finding of thelearned Joint Charity Commissioner is ex-facieperverse and contrary to the definition of“person having interest” under section 2(10)(e)of the MPT Act and also the definition of“beneficiary” defined under section 2(2-A) of theMPT Act. The finding of the learned JointCharity Commissioner that considering the closerelationship between the settlor and therespondent as well as he being a member of ShriHalai Lohana Mahajan community, therespondent was a person having interest asrequired under section 41-D of the MPT Act isalso ex-facie perverse and contrary to section 41-D of the MPT Act. In my view, in view of thedefinition of section 2(2-A) of the MPT Act, thedefinition of “person having interest” undersection 2(10)(e) has to be given a restrictedmeaning. In my view, even if a person is amember of the community, he does notautomatically become a beneficiary definedunder section 2(2-A) of the MPT Act.67.A perusal of the statement of objects andreasons of 2017 Act clearly indicates that afterconsidering the fact that the proceedings undervarious provisions of the MPT Act remainedpending for inordinate long period resulting inhindrance in advancement of the public religious 12wp-13429-2024and charitable objects, various amendmentswere proposed. Insofar as section 41-D isconcerned, in my view, the definition‘beneficiary’ has to be given narrow andrestrictive meaning. It is thus clear that thelegislative intent to insert the definition of‘beneficiary’ under section 2-A of the MPT Act isto restrict the interference with the managementof the public trust only by the persons havinginterest in the trust including the trustee andbeneficiary and more particularly the beneficiarydefined under section 2(2-A) of the MPT Actinserted by 2017 Amendment and no otherperson.16.It appears from the reading of the judgment that aperson who was a member of the community, which wasrunning a public trust is held not to be a ‘beneficiary’ or a‘person having interest’ in the trust. It is specifically held thatthe word ‘beneficiary’ as defined under the Act must receive anarrow and restricted interpretation so as to minimizeinterference by people with the management of public Trust.17.It is apparent from the contents of the petition as alsofrom the rejoinder that the petitioner has no direct concernwith the Trust. He is a stranger. The averments regardinglocus indicate that the petitioner has no concern with theaffairs of the Trust and is unnecessarily inter-meddling in the
Decision
13wp-13429-2024matter. Having regard to the contents of the petition and theaffidavit in rejoinder, this Court is of the opinion that thepetitioner cannot said to be a ‘beneficiary’ or ‘a person havinginterest’ in the respondent no.3/Trust.18.The preliminary objection pertaining to the locus-standiof the petitioner is upheld. It is held that petitioner does nothave any locus-standi to challenge the judgment and orderdated 23.03.2023 passed by the learned Joint CharityCommissioner in application no.09 of 2023.19.The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no ordersas to cost.20.Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )Rushikesh/2025