2025:BHC-AS:54952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally WRIT PETITION NO.6370 OF 2023

signed by VISHAL

VISHAL SUBHASH SUBHASHPAREKAR

PAREKAR Date:

2025.12.15

14:35:05 Sanjiv Raghunath Patki and Ors. ...Petitioners

+0530

Versus

Gautam Shripad Dongre ...Respondent

——————

Mr. Aditya Shirke, for the Petitioners.

——————

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2025

P. C. :

1. By the present Petition, the challenge is to clause (ii) of the impugned order dated 27^th December, 2021 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in an application filed under Section 41D of the

Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (in short “the Act, 1950”)

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would point out that the application was filed by the Respondent proposing draft charges under section 41D read with section 41A of the Act, 1950. He would submit that the Respondent has been duly served however, there is no appearance which is caused by the Respondent even on the last occasion. He would point out the draft charges and the impugned order to submit that the draft charges came to be approved however, by clause (ii) of the said order the Joint Charity Commissioner has held

the opponent trustees responsible under section 41D(1)(a),(b),(c) and (d) of the Act, 1950 which is contrary to the scheme framed under section 41D of the Act, 1950.

3. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

4. The facts as borne out from the record is that, the Respondent filed an application with the Joint Charity Commissioner proposing draft charges against the present Petitioners. The application was marked Exhibit 25 and in all 26 charges were proposed including charges as regards financial mismanagement, the default in auditing account of the trust, misappropriation of the trust property, failure to obtain necessary approval for incurring the expenditure in excess of income, reducing investment for the relevant period etc. The impugned order of 27^th December, 2021 approves the draft charges at Exhibit 25 by recording the submissions of the parties and coming to a conclusion that in view of the draft charges there appears to be some discrepancy in the administration of the trust and fair opportunity is required to be given to the parties to lead evidence as warranted under section 41D of the Act, 1950.

5. The Joint Charity Commissioner is therefore conscious of the statutory scheme of section 41D of the Act, 1950 which mandates that after the draft charges are framed, an opportunity is required to be given for meeting the charges and it is only after considering the evidence that an appropriate order can be passed as contemplated by section 41D of the trust Act, 1950. Clause (ii) of the impugned order gives the complete go by to the statutory scheme and approves the draft charges and without giving an opportunity of leading evidence holds the Opponent trustees responsible under section 41D(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) which refers to persistent default in submission of accounts report, disobedience of the lawful orders, neglect of duty, breach of trust and misappropriation of property. The conclusion of the Joint Charity Commissioner without giving an opportunity of leading evidence to the Petitioners and without any discussion is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law. As the draft are framed, the Petitioners can face the charges, and after evidence being led, it is open for the Joint Charity Commissioner to take appropriate decision.

6. In so far as the clause (1) of the impugned order is concerned, the same is in consonance with the law.

7. In light of the above, clause (2) of the impugned order dated 27^th December, 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]