The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside orders and maintain directions for the final decision of change reports within a specified time frame, considering the circumstances and the maintainability of the petition.

ORDER :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the ld. counsels for the parties, Rule is taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition, Petitioner assails order dated 13th October, 2022 passed below Exhibit 52 by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur in Revision No. 46 of 2022 as well as order dated 10th August, 2022 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad below Exhibit 06 in Enquiry No. 131 of 2022. By order dated 10th August, 2022, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has proceeded to exercise powers under sub section 2 of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short “Act of 1950”) and has provisionally accepted the change reported by the respondents for the year 2021-2024 in Enquiry No. 131 of 2022.

3. Several change reports submitted by the contesting parties for various periods are already pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad bearing Change Report No. 299 of 2015, C. R. No. 253 of 2018, C. R. No. 254 of 2018, C. R. No. 202 of 2021, C. R. No. 203 of 2021, C. R. No. 223 of 2021, C. R. No. 3531 of 2017, C. R. No. 129 of 2022 and C. R. No. 131 of 2022. So far the issue of provisional acceptance of change is concerned, Petitioner had also reported change on 17.08.2021 for the period 2020-2023 and the Assistant Charity Commissioner did not exercise powers U/Sec. 22(2) of the Act of 1950, but selectively exercised those powers in the change report filed by the respondents on 17.03.2022. Mr. Sapkal, the learned senior Advocate for the petitioner would object to the order passed by the A. C. C. on the ground that there is complete non application of mind and non recording of the reasons while passing the impugned order. Mr. Sapkal, would further submit that an appropriate interim arrangement was already made by the A. C. C. by order dated 13.03.2018 by appointing an Inspector from his office as well as Head Master of Residential School to operate the bank accounts. He would therefore submit that there was no necessity for the A. C. C. to provisionally accept the change U/Sec. 22(2) of the Act of 1950. Mr. Sapkal would further question the time at which the provisional change is accepted. Referring to provisions of Section 22(2) of the Act of 1950, Mr. Sapkal would contend that the order of provisional acceptance is passed beyond the period of 15 days as mandated under the Act of 1950. He would submit that the change was reported on 17.02.2022, the application for provisional acceptance was made on 19.05.2022 and the impugned order is passed by the A. C. C. on 10.08.2022. Mr. Sapkal would therefore submit that even though an objection to the provisional change has indeed been filed by the petitioner before the A. C. C. on 13.09.2022, since the order accepting provisional change was patently illegal, the petitioner rightly filed revision before the Joint Charity Commissioner, without waiting for an order of the A.C.C. on his objections. However, the Joint Charity Commissioner was pleased to dismiss the revision petition filed by the petitioner directing that the pending change reports be decided within a period of three months.

4. Per contra, Mr. Thombre the learned counsel appearing for respondents would question the maintainability of the petition contending that under the third Proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 22 of the Act of 1950, the A. C. C. is required to hold an enquiry into the objection to the provisional change and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of objection. Mr. Thombre would contend that since the objection has been filed on 13.09.2022, the petitioner ought to have waited for decision on the objection. Neither the objections are decided, nor period of three months has expired from 13.09.2022. Mr. Thombre, would therefore submit that the petition is not maintainable. Mr. Thombre would further submit that special provision has been introduced in the form of Sub Section 2 of Section 22 of the Act of 195