IMPORTANT POINT
Provisional acceptance of a change report under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act must consider objections and provide a hearing to affected parties, adhering to natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

(R.M. Joshi, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By consent of parties, heard finally at admission stage.

3. This Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur (for short ‘Jt.CC) in Revision No. 15/2024 whereby order passed in Change Report No. 335/2023, accepting change report provisionally under Section 22(2) of Maharashtra Public Trust Act (for short ‘the Act’) is set aside.

4. Petitioner claims himself to be the founder member and President of trust namely Gunai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal registered under the Act as well as Societies Registration Act. It is claimed that as the tenure of five years of the managing committee of the trust was coming to an end in the month of May, 2024, a general body meeting of the trust was held on 27.05.2022 wherein election of the managing committee was done for the period from 2022-2027. Petitioner claims to be elected as President and Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 being office bearers of the trust. Pursuant to the said election, the newly elected executive committee took over charge of the management of the trust and they started looking after its day to day affairs. Petitioner filed Change Report bearing No. 335/2023 with the Deputy Charity Commissioner (for short “Dy.C.C.”) on 12.04.2023 under Section 22 of the Act. He also filed an application before the Dy. C.C. under the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Act with a prayer to accept Change Report No. 335/2023 provisionally. By order dated 30.01.2023, said report was accepted provisionally.

5. Respondent No. 3, being aggrieved by the said order filed Revision Application bearing No. 15/2024 before the Jt. CC. Latur. Prior thereto, this Respondent filed application for recalling order dated 30.10.2023 before the Dy. C.C. The Jt. C.C. by passing impugned order dated 08.07.2024, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Dy. C.C. dated 30.10.2023 whereby Change Report No. 335/2023 was provisionally accepted.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 submitted that the revision application filed by Respondent No. 3 against the order passed by the Dy. C.C. is not maintainable for the reason that the application for recalling of the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in Change Report No. 335/2023 is pending before the said authority. It is argued that during the pendency of said application, revision could not have been entertained. It is also claimed that revision has been filed by suppressing said material fact from the revisional authority. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 in response to the judgment cited by Respondent No. 3 of this court in case of Anand Sheshrao Bharose vs Rahul Vedprakash Patil and others, in Writ Petition No. 3788/2021, submitted that this judgment is set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court. On merit of the order passed by the revisional authority, it is contended that the observations made by him for allowing the application are not sustainable. It is submitted that the scheme of Section 22(2) of the Act introduced by way of amendment to the Act does not contemplate hearing of objections at the stage of provisional acceptance of the change report. It is their contention that only Change Report bearing No. 335/2023 filed by the Petitioner was moved for provisional acceptance. No such prayer was made in Change Report No. 330/2023 filed by Respondent No. 3. It is their submission that there is no bar created by relevant provision from accepting one change report provisionally even in case of pendency of multiple change reports for the same period. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 3 is not member of the Trust and in order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the Dy. C.C. in the change report enquiry No. 251/2010 resolution dated 08.05.2010 by which Respondent No. 3 was admitted as member is not accepted. Thus, it is their contention that Revision ought to have been entertained by Jt.C.C. On these