The Court held that an election officer's direction regarding election conduct by a charity commissioner exceeds jurisdiction under Section 41A of the MPT Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sandesh D. Patil, J.

1) Writ Petition (St.) No.35405 of 2025 not on board. Taken on board.

2) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Both the Petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3) By the present Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the Order dated 31^st October 2025, passed by The Assistant Charity Commissioner-VII, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.4”) under the provisions of Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as “MPT Act”). The Operative Part of the Impugned Order reads as under :-

1. The election officer/returning officer appointed for upcoming election managing committee which is scheduled on 8th November, 2025 is hereby directed to consider the membership list which was finalised in annual general meeting dated 27.09.2025 and scrutinised on 03.10.2025 for the voting of election of managing committee.

2. The election officer / returning officer which has been appointed by the trust for conducting the election scheduled on 08th November, 2025 is directed to conduct the election scrupulously as per provisions given in the rules and regulations / constitution of the trust.

4) It is the case of the Petitioners that they are the members of Respondent No.1-Trust. The Petitioners contend that the election program of the trust was declared by publishing a notice dated 3^rd October 2025.

5) Mr. Atul Damle, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition (St) No.35405 of 2025, has argued that the Petitioners have been enrolled as members on 3^rd October 2025 itself. Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.15028 of 2025, contends that the Petitioners were enrolled as members on 15^th October 2025. They submit that the date of membership, however is not relevant to decide the issue in hand. Both the learned Counsels submit that the only challenge in this Petition is to the exercise of powers under Section 41A of the MPT Act, by Respondent No.4, after the election was declared. They contended that once the election was declared, the directions of Respondent No.4, in the impugned Order, more specifically, the direction No.1 amounts to direction to the trust regarding the manner in which the election should be conducted. They submit that such powers were not vested in Respondent No.4 by virtue of Section 41A of the MPT Act. Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Bhavesh Parmar appearing for the Petitioners relied upon the following Judgments in support of their case :-

(1) Vidya Rajaram Bandiwadekar Vs. State of Maharashtra , 2024 (5) ABR 38.

(2) Hazrat Maulana Mufti Mujeeb Ashraf Sahab Vs. Allamah Haji Sayed Hussaini Miyan Sahab , AIR OnLine 2020 Bom 204.

(3) Lahudas Sambhaji Karad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors, AIR 1993 Bom 315.

6) Both the Advocates state that the Judgment and Order passed by Respondent No.4 dated 31^st October 2025, was obtained by the Applicant and the Respondent-Trust in collusion. There was not even an Affidavit-in-Reply/Written Statement filed to the Application of the Applicants under Section 41A of the MPT Act. They submit that this is an Order, which is obtained by playing a fraud upon the Office of Respondent No.4.

7) Both the learned Counsels relied upon para 2 of the impugned Order, to contend that the said Order was obtained by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with each other.

8) Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the contesting Respondents submits that the Petitions are not maintainable