High Court
Legal Reasoning
1347.2024WP+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 1347 OF 2024Uddhav S/o Kisanrao Shelke Age -84 years, Occ : Agri., & Advocate, R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER... VERSUS ... 1. Prabhakar S/o Dnyanoba Shelke Age-49 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. 2.Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. 3.The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur. ...RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1348 OF 2024Uddhav S/o Kisanrao Shelke Age -84 years, Occ : Agri., & Advocate, R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER... VERSUS ... 1. Ramraje S/o Bhimrao Shelke Age-74 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. 2.Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. 3.The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur. ...RESPONDENTSkomal kamble page 1 of 8 1347.2024WP+WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2024Uddhav S/o Kisanrao Shelke Age -84 years, Occ : Agri., & Advocate, R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER... VERSUS ... 1. Prabhakar S/o Dnyanoba Shelke Age-49 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. 2.Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. 3.The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur. ...RESPONDENTSWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1350 OF 2024Uddhav S/o Kisanrao Shelke Age -84 years, Occ : Agri., & Advocate, R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER... VERSUS ... 1. Prabhakar S/o Dnyanoba Shelke Age-49 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. 2.Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. 3.The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur. ...RESPONDENTSkomal kamble page 2 of 8
Legal Reasoning
1347.2024WP+WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1351 OF 2024Uddhav S/o Kisanrao Shelke Age -84 years, Occ : Agri., & Advocate, R/o Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER... VERSUS ... 1. Prabhakar S/o Dnyanoba Shelke Age-49 years, Occ : Agri., Khamaswadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad. 2.Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. 3.The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur. ...RESPONDENTS___________________________________________________________________________________________•Mr. Kishor J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners•Mr. A.B. Tele, Advocate for Respondent No.1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED: AUGUST 06, 2025ORAL JUDGMENT:The issue involved in all these petitions are in relation toRokadeshwari Devasthan Trust, therefore, the present petitions are heardand decided together by this common judgment. 2.All these petitions take exception to order dated 20.04.2023passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad, condoningthe delay in filing Change Report filed by respondent no. 1. Thekomal kamble page 3 of 8 1347.2024WP+controversy in these matters pertains to a religious public trust - ShriRokadeshwari Devasthan Trust, registered for management ofRokadeshwari Devi Temple, Khamsawadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad.The said trust was registered on 28.08.1962 vide No. A-911(Osmanabad). From the year 1996 and onwards, Change Reports withrespect to the elections of Board of Trustees have not been filed. Thepetitioners and other devotees had filed an application under Section 47of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act against respondent no. 1 and othertrustees. 3.In this backdrop, respondent no. 1 has filed five ChangeReports regarding elections of Board of Trustees. In all these matters,there was a delay caused in filing the Change Reports. Respondent No. 1filed separate applications for condonation of delay in all five matters. Itis stated that respondent no. 1 – trustee was not aware about legalobligations regarding filing of Change Reports and therefore,unintentionally the delay had occurred in filing the Change Reports. Thepetitioner filed application for intervention and opposed the applicationfor condonation of delay. The learned Assistant Charity Commissionerhas allowed all five applications for condonation of delay by imposingcosts. It is observed that the matter should not be treated as a disputebetween two persons and interest of the Trust should be protected andkomal kamble page 4 of 8 1347.2024WP+therefore, liberal view is required to be taken. Aggrieved by that order ofcondonation of delay, the petitioners filed revision applications beforethe Joint Charity Commissioner, which are also rejected. It is held that itis paramount to protect the interest of the trust and therefore, liberalview should be taken in matters of delay in filing Change Reports. Beingaggrieved by the said orders, these petitions are filed by the interveners,who claims to be a devotee. 4.The learned counsels for the petitioners states thatignorance of law can never be a ground for condonation of delay. Hecontends that records have been fabricated to make a show that electionswere held, although no such elections were ever held. Placing relianceon judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed by this Court (Nagpur Bench) inWrit Petition No. 6078 of 2015, the learned advocate contends that theapplication for condonation of delay was liable to be rejected. 5.Per contra, the learned advocate for respondent no. 1supports the orders. He submits that discretion exercised by twoauthorities should not be interfered with, particularly when ordersinvolving discretion for condonation of delay are impugned in thesepetitions. The learned advocate states that the provisions of MaharashtraPublic Trust Act have been amended by Maharashtra Act No. 40 of 2017,komal kamble page 5 of 8 1347.2024WP+which has come into force w.e.f. 10.10.2017 by which a specificprovision for condonation of delay is incorporated in the Act. Thelearned advocate places reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the matter of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan Shelgi Vs. SubhashMallikarjun Birajdar and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 646.6.Perusal of the impugned order will demonstrate that thelearned Assistant Charity Commissioner has observed that althoughproper reason is not assigned for seeking condonation of delay, the delayis condoned, having due regard to the interest of the public trust. Thelearned Revisional Authority has also concurred with the view taken bylearned Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is well settled that this courtin exercise of its writ jurisdiction should be slow in interfering withdiscretionary orders such as orders passed on application forcondonation of delay. In the considered opinion of this court, the learnedadvocate for respondent no. 1 has rightly pointed out that the judgmentin Writ Petition No. 6078 of 2015 was delivered when there was nospecific provision for condonation of delay in filing Change Report underthe Act and now such provision is incorporated in the Act. The judgmentof the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is relied upon by respondent no. 1will demonstrate that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed thata lenient view needs to be adopted while dealing with applications forkomal kamble page 6 of 8
Decision
1347.2024WP+condonation of delay in filing Change Reports. The judgment also holdsthat it is also duty of the authorities under the Act to maintain properrecords of public trusts which obviously includes recording change thatoccurs in the Trust. Having regard to circumstances and the position oflaw as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the consideredopinion of this Court, the impugned orders need not be interfered with. 7.The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has imposedcosts of Rs.4000/-, Rs.8000/-, Rs.10,000, Rs.6000/- and Rs.2000/-respectively while allowing the application for condonation of delay. Aperusal of Section 66 will indicate that cost of Rs.10,000/- should beimposed in case of failure to report a change under Section 22 within theprescribed period. In view of the above, all these petitions are partlyallowed by maintaining the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by thelearned Assistant Charity Commissioner in all applications, as also orderspassed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in Revision ApplicationNos.64/2023, 62/2023, 61/2023, 63/2023, 65/2023, subject topayment of cost of Rs.10,000/- in each matter.8.Needless to mention that contention of the learned advocatefor the petitioners with respect to fabrication of records which pertains tomerits of Change Report is not dealt with since the matter pertains tokomal kamble page 7 of 8 1347.2024WP+condonation of delay. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner willhave due regard to the allegations made in this regard while deciding theChange Reports. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]komal kamble page 8 of 8