The Charity Commissioner has wide revisionary powers under Section 70-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, to call for records and proceedings of cases decided by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner and make appropriate orders, including directing further inquiry or taking additional evidence.

Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUST - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950 - SECTION 70-A - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - REVISION OF ORDERS OF DEPUTY OR ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER - DISCRETION OF CHARITY COMMISSIONER - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - DELAY - LATCHE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:

Dispute over the management of a Darga in Kolhapur between two families, the Mutawallis and the Mujawars. Appellant, the son of a Mujawar, claimed a share in the management and income of the Darga. The Assistant Charity Commissioner had earlier decided the statutory issues in favor of the respondent, leading to a suit filed by the appellant. During the pendency of the suit, Section 70-A was added to the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, granting revisionary powers to the Charity Commissioner. The appellant applied for revision under Section 70-A, which was allowed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, setting aside the earlier order and directing a fresh inquiry. The District Court, on an application by the respondent, set aside the Joint Charity Commissioner's order, holding that the powers under Section 70-A were limited and akin to those under Section 115, Civil P. C.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that Section 70-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, applies to all cases mentioned in Section 70, irrespective of whether the order was made before or after the coming into force of Section 70-A. The Charity Commissioner has jurisdiction to call for the record and proceedings of any case decided by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner and make appropriate orders. The scope of Section 70-A is not limited to the same extent as that of Section 115, Civil P. C. The Charity Commissioner has unrestricted powers to call for evidence or direct further inquiry, subject to the exercise of discretion judicially. The High Court also held that the principles analogous to Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C., regarding additional evidence may not be rigidly applicable to revisional applications before the Charity Commissioner, considering the manner of making inquiries under the Act. In the present case, the delay in making the application under Section 70-A was not inordinate, as the appellant had been pursuing his rights through a suit and subsequent appeals.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 70-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, applies retrospectively to orders made before its enactment? 2. Whether the scope of Section 70-A is limited to the same extent as that of Section 115, Civil P. C.? 3. Whether the Charity Commissioner has unrestricted powers to call for evidence or direct further inquiry under Section 70-A? 4. Whether the principles analogous to Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C., regarding additional evidence are applicable to revisional applications before the Charity Commissioner? 5. Whether the delay in making the application under Section 70-A was inordinate, considering the appellant's pursuit of his rights through a suit and subsequent appeals?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 70-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, applies to all cases mentioned in Section 70, irrespective of whether the order was made before or after the coming into force of Section 70-A. The Charity Commissioner has jurisdiction to call for the record and proceedings of any case decided by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner and make appropriate orders. 2. The scope of Section 70-A is not limited to the same extent as that of Section 115, Civil P. C. The Charity Commissioner has unrestricted powers to call for evidence or direct further inquiry, subject to the exercise of discretion judicially. 3. The principles analogous to Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C., regarding additional evidence may not be rigidly applicable to revisional applications before the Charity Commissioner, considering the manner of making inquiries under the Act. 4. The delay in making the application under Section 70-A was not inordinate, as the appellant had been pursuing his rights through a suit and subsequent appeals.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the District Court and restored the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. The High Court retained First Appeal No. 56 of 1967 on its file and called for the findings to be certified by each of the authorities below. The evidence led in suit No. 38 of 1955, both before and after remand, was to be treated as evidence before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Assistant Charity Commissioner was directed to make findings and certify them to the Charity Commissioner within three months, who would then certify the findings to the District Court within one month. The District Court was to certify the findings to the High Court within one month from the date of receipt.

JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

1. First Appeal No. 56 of 1967 arises out of an order made by the learned District Judge at Kolhapur setting aside the order made by the Joint Charity Commissioner in a revisional application. The genesis of this dispute may be very shortly stated. In Kolhapur city there is a Darga of one Hajrat Pir Babu Jamal. There are two families interested in this Darga, one is the family of Mutawallis and the other of Mujawars. The appellant and respondent No. 1 are the sons of one Haidar Babaji, who died in 1926. He was the Mujawar and had eight annas share in the emoluments. He made a will by which he directed his sons i.e the appellant and respondent No. 1 to do the management of their shares by turns in certain manner. Respondent No. 1 is the elder son and the appellant is the younger son of the said Haidar. After the death of Haidar, the management was done in accordance with the terms of the Will. In fact, the appellant managed the entire property of the Darga and sent respondent No. 1, who was staying outside, moneys from time to time pertaining to his share. It is alleged that according tot the custom of the management of this Darga the managers appropriate what remains after the legitimate expenses of the Darga are met, as their share for the service. In 1950 respondent No. 1 came back to Kolhapur and started record of rights proceedings for change in the entries. Until then the property stood in the names of the appellant and respondent No. 1. By these proceedings he sought to have property transferred to his name alone. Fortune favoured him and he succeeded in getting a final order from the Government in his favour. This order was made by the Government on February 18, 1954. Applications were also made to the Charity Commissioner in 1952 under Section 19 of the Act both by the appellant and respondent No. 1 in respect of eight annas share. The Assistant Charity Commissioner by his order February 18, 1954 entered the name of respondent No. 1 as the manager. The appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, on August 19, 1955 for a declaration that he was a sharer in the management of the Darga and that he was entitled to four annas share out of the income., The appellant failed in that suit. Against the judgment of the learned trial Judge, he filed an appeal (First Appeal No. 804 of 1957) in this Court. This appeal came up for hearing before Shah J. and myself on April 11, 1963. We heard the arguments for a considerable time both on the point of law involved and on merits. Mr. Bhasme, for the appellant, then applied that he should be allowed to amend the plaint contending that according to the custom prevailing in respect of this Darga the Mujawarship was divisible and the Mujawars were entitled to appropriate the balance remaining out of the income after the expenses of the Darga were met. After hearing Mr. Shrikhande, for respondent No. 1, we allowed the amendment and remitted the matter to the trial Court for determining afresh issues arising out of the amendment. After remand, the learned Judge submitted his findings. The matter then again came before myself and Abhyankar J. At that stage, it was found that there would be difficulty in the way of Mr. Bhasme by reason of the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to enable Mr. Bhasme to make an application to the Charity Commissioner under Section 70-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Accordingly, an application was made on behalf of the appellant to the Charity Commissioner in revision under Section 70-A of the Act. In that application the appellant stated all that had happened so far and further said that large volume of evidence was led after the remand before the learned trial Judge and that that evidence if received in this matter would make a lot of difference to the ultimate decision about the rights of the appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document