Bombay High Court: Charity Commissioner Lacks Power to Interfere in Trust Elections Under Section 41A

---

Mumbai: In a significant ruling on the administrative powers over public trusts, the Bombay High Court has held that the Charity Commissioner cannot interfere with the election process of a trust under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts (MPT) Act once the election has been declared. The decision, delivered by a division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sandesh D. Patil, quashed an order by the Assistant Charity Commissioner that had directed the use of a specific voter list for the upcoming elections of The Asiatic Society of Mumbai.

Background of the Dispute

The case arose from two writ petitions filed by members of The Asiatic Society of Mumbai, a registered public trust. The society had declared its managing committee elections via a notice on October 3, 2025. Subsequently, an application was filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner (Respondent No. 4) who, on October 31, 2025, issued an "Administrative Order" under Section 41A of the MPT Act.

This order directed the Returning Officer to exclusively use the membership list finalized in the Annual General Meeting of September 27, 2025, for the election scheduled on November 8, 2025. The petitioners, who had become members after this list was finalized, challenged the order, arguing that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had overstepped his jurisdiction.

Arguments in Court

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Atul Damle and Advocate Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, contended that the jurisdiction under Section 41A is purely administrative and does not extend to meddling in electoral matters. They argued that once the election process is initiated, the Charity Commissioner has no authority to issue directions on how the election should be conducted, including dictating which voter list to use. The petitioners further alleged that the order was obtained through collusion between the applicants and the trust itself, noting that the trust did not contest the application and "virtually acceded to the prayers."

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Mr. Girish Godbole, representing the contesting respondents, challenged the maintainability of the petitions, pointing out that the petitioners had only recently become members. He also raised concerns about large sums of money being poured into the trust's accounts by political parties after the election was announced.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

The High Court focused solely on the legal question of the Assistant Charity Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 41A of the MPT Act, clarifying it would not delve into the validity of the membership lists.

Citing a series of established precedents, including Lahudas Sambhaji Karad vs. The State of Maharashtra and Shri Sheshrao Manikrao Shrirao Vs. Shri Vijay Ramgopal Farsoye , the bench reiterated a settled principle of law.

> "It has been held in clear terms that matters pertaining to elections are beyond the provisions of Section 41A of the Act of 1950," the court observed, quoting from a previous judgment.

The judgment emphasized that the powers under Section 41A are meant to ensure proper administration of a trust and protect its property, not to adjudicate election disputes. The court noted:

> "In our opinion, once, the election was declared on 3rd October 2025, there was no occasion for Respondent No.1 to file the proceedings under Section 41A of the MPT Act... Respondent No.4 by passing the Order, has virtually gone into the issue of membership list which was impermissible."

The bench also took a dim view of the circumstances under which the order was passed, stating that the trust's representative acceding to the application "speaks volumes," lending weight to the petitioners' claims of collusion.

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Assistant Charity Commissioner's order dated October 31, 2025, calling it "bad in law." The court made it clear that it had not stayed the elections, which were scheduled to proceed as per the original notice.

The issue of membership and voter eligibility was left open, with the court granting liberty to the parties to raise their contentions under appropriate legal provisions. This judgment reinforces the demarcation between the administrative oversight of the Charity Commissioner and the autonomy of the electoral process within a public trust.