Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.5595 OF 2010

R. B. Bohora Educational & Welfare Trust … Petitioner
V/s.
Vijay Mundaware & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. C. G. Gavnekar a/w Mr. Rohit Parab, for the Petitioner.
Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for the State – Respondent No.9.
Mr. Ajinkya Jagdale i/b Shekhar Jagtap, J Shekhar & Co., for Respondent Nos.1, 3, and 4.
Mr. Suhas S. Deokar a/w Tanmay M. Shumbavanekar, for Respondent Nos.5 to 8.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JANUARY 29, 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. G. Gavnekar, Rohit Parab
For the Respondents: V. S. Nimbalkar, Ajinkya Jagdale, Shekhar Jagtap, Suhas S. Deokar, Tanmay M. Shumbavanekar

The supervisory authority’s power under the act to issue directions for 'proper administration' is restricted to the protection and management of trust property and income. It does not empower the authority to issue orders for moral correction or general grievances unrelated to the trust's financial or proprietary affairs.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 41A - Power of supervisory authority to issue directions - Scope and ambit - Direction issued to trust to publish public apology for alleged misrepresentation concerning school affiliation - Whether such direction falls within the meaning of 'proper administration' - Held, powers conferred are restricted to preserving the financial and proprietary integrity of the trust - Power cannot be invoked for moral correction or matters unconnected to trust assets, property, or internal fiscal management. (Paras 15, 16, 18, 19)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Principles of contextual reading - Provisions regarding management of trust funds and property form a distinct legislative code - Section 41A must be interpreted in alignment with the legislative scheme governing trust oversight, and cannot be construed as an open-ended source of authority. (Paras 10, 15, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the jurisdictional authority directing the publication of a public apology in connection with grievances raised by parties concerning the alleged failure to secure school affiliation. The petitioner contended that the authority lacked the statutory jurisdiction to interfere in matters that did not pertain to the administration of trust property, income, or fiduciary management.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the authority exercised powers under a provision primarily concerned with safeguarding trust assets and ensuring fiscal compliance. As the grievance pertained to school admission and affiliation issues—and not to the misuse of funds, illegal alienation, or breach of fiduciary duty regarding property—the direction for a public apology was found to be beyond the scope of the authority's legal mandate.

Issues: The central issue was whether the statutory power to issue directions for the "proper administration" of a trust includes the authority to issue mandates for public apologies regarding operational grievances unrelated to the financial or proprietary management of the institution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power under the Act is limited to the protection of trust property and the regulation of statutory financial affairs. The term "proper administration" must be interpreted in the context of the legislative scheme governing assets and accounts. Since the impugned direction lacked a direct nexus with the trust’s property, income, or statutory administration, the authority acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding the trust dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties' contentions regarding section 41a and jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8)
3. statutory analysis of trust property and financial management. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. narrow interpretation of section 41a power is property-focused. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. order setting aside the unauthorized jurisdictional action. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT.:

1. The petitioner is a public trust duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The present petition assails the judgment and order dated 28 June 2010 passed by respondent No.9 in Application No.61 of 2010. By the said order, the petitioner Trust was directed to issue a public apology to the students and their parents who were alleged to have suffered on account of refusal of admission by the CBSE Board. The direction required publication of such apology in two widely circulated newspapers in Nashik City.

2. The material facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be stated thus. The petitioner Trust was registered under the said Act on 23 April 1998. In the year 1999, the Trust was granted permission to establish a school under the name and style of New Era English School. The school obtained affiliation from the SSC Board in the year 2002. On 3 January 2004, upon requests made by parents, the petitioner secured a No Objection Certificate for the purpose of seeking affiliation of the school with the CBSE Board.

3. On 28 February 2009, an inspection of the school premises was conducted by the inspection committee of the CBSE Board. Upon such inspection, the CBSE Board communicated its decision rejecting the application for affiliation. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said decision before the CBSE Board also came to be rejected.

4. Subsequent thereto, the School Committee convened a meeting of the parents and apprised them of the reasons for rejection of the application for affiliation by the CBSE Board. Thereafter, on 12 January 2010, respondent Nos.1 to 4 instituted an application against the petitioner alleging that the parents and students had been cheated on account of a misrepresentation that the school was affiliated to the CBSE Board.

5. The petitioner appeared in the said proceedings, filed its written reply, and opposed the grant of any relief. Despite the objections raised, respondent No.9 passed the impugned order dated 28 June 2010 directing the petitioner Trust to publish a

public apology in two prominent newspapers circulated in Nashik City. The said order further directed the Inspector to initiate an enquiry against the school management and the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said directions, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

6. By an order dated 14 October 2010, this Court issued Rule in the petition and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (10).

7. Mr. Gavnekar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, drew attention to Section 41A and Chapter V-A of the said Act, comprising Sections 35, 36A and 36B, which deal with matters relating to the property of public trusts. He submitted that the word property used in Section 41A cannot be read in isolation and must be understood in the context of the said provisions. According to him, Section 41A confers limited powers upon the Charity Commissioner to issue directions only for ensuring proper administration of the trust and proper accounting and application of its income towards the objects of the trust. On this basis, it was contended that respondent No.9 lacked authority to entertain the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, as the subject matter of the application did not concern the administration of the trust, its property, or its income as contemplated under Section 41A read with Sections 35, 36A and 36B of the said Act. It was urged that the impugned order was passed without jurisd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document