Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15028 OF 2025
1. Ramesh Tulshiram Bhutekar
Age about 61 years, occ. Retired
Residing at 1902, E Wing, Laxmi Residence Tower
NM Joshi Marg, Byculla (West), Mumbai.
2. Vishwas Ramchandra Utagi
Age : about 72 years, occ. Retired
Residing at 1704, Azziano Building, Rustomjee Urbania, Saket Road, Thane-400 601 … Petitioners
Through its President.
A registered Public Trust under the Maharashtra
Public Trust Act, 1950, having its registered
Office at Town Hall, Shahid Bhabat Singh Marg, Mumbai-400 023.
2. Abhijit Mulye
Age : Not known, Occ. Business.
5/15, Artist Village, Near Arenja Complex
Sector 8, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 614.
3. Viajayanthi Chakravarthi
Age : Not known, occ. Business.
Y-27, Lane 1 Near ONGC Colony, Sector 9, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 614
4. Assistant Charity Commissioner-VII, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai
Dharmaday Ayukt Bhavan, 2nd
Floor, Rajesh Chittewan, PS 1/12
Sasmira Building, Sasmira Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 032.
5. Giridhar Shetty, Returning Officer/
Election Officer, Age : Not known, Occ. Service.
C/o. Asiatic Society of Mumbai, Town
Hall, Shahid Bhagat Marg, Mumbai-400 023 … Respondents
1. Nirav Shah
Age : 50 Years, Occ. Self Employed
Add-1116, Maker Chambers 5, Jamnalal
Bajaj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai
2. Dhananjay Ramkrishna Shinde, Age 54 Years, Occ. Service
Address – 405/B, Dosti Aster, Dosti Acres, Wadala-East, Mumbai-400 037. … Petitioners
Through its President.
A registered Public Trust under the Maharashtra
Public Trust Act, 1950, having its registered
Office at Town Hall, Shahid Bhabat Singh Marg, Mumbai-400 023.
2. Abhijit Mulye
Age : Not known, Occ. Business.
5/15, Artist Village, Near Arenja Complex
Sector 8, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 614.
3. Viajayanthi Chakravarthi
Age : Not known, occ. Business.
Y-27, Lane 1 Near ONGC Colony, Sector 9, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 614
Rajesh Chittewan, PS 2/12
4. Assistant Charity Commissioner-VII, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai
Dharmaday Ayukt Bhavan, 2nd
Floor, Sasmira Building, Sasmira Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 032.
5. Giridhar Shetty, Returning Officer/
Election Officer, Age : Not known, Occ. Service.
C/o. Asiatic Society of Mumbai, Town
Hall, Shahid Bhagat Marg, Mumbai-400 023 … Respondents
------
Mr. Bhavesh Parmar a/w Mr. Rahul Gaikwad, Ms. Nikita Abhyankar and
Ms. Komal Singh for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.15028 of 2025.
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Sanjay Kher and Mr. Amit
Gharte for the Petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No.35405 of 2025.
Mr. Ketan Joshi ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the State in Writ Petition
No.15028 of 2025.
Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent- State Writ
Petition (St.) No.35405 of 2025.
Mr. Joel D’Souza i/b Mr. Suresh M. Kamble for Respondent Nos.1 and 5 in both Petitions.
Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. R.S. Datar a/w Mr. Neel
Helekar, Ms. Druti Dagar and Mr. Gaurang Zaveri for Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
------
JUDGMENT
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 31st 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 Rajesh Chittewan, PS 4/12 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 15th 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 Rajesh Chittewan, PS 5/12 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 31st 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
7) Both the learned Counsels relied upon para 2 of the impugned Rajesh Chittewan, PS 6/12 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. He submitted that the said Petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No.35405 of 2025 became members only on 3rd October 2025 and the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.15028 of 2025 became members on 15th October 2025. He submits that the Petitions are not maintainable and that the elections are to be held as per the schedule.
9) Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.[2] and 3 submits that after the election was declared, a huge amount of money was poured into by certain political parties in the bank account(s) of Respondent No.1-trust. He prayed for dismissal of the Petitions.
10) We have heard the the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. It will be apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 41A of the MPT Act, which reads as under:- Rajesh Chittewan, PS 7/12 41A. Power of Commissioner to issue directions for proper administration of the trust- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Charity Commissioner may from time to time issue directions to any trustee of a public trust or any person connected therewith, to ensure that the trust is properly administered, and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied to the objects and for the purposes of the trust; and the Charity Commissioner may also give directions to the trustees or such person that if he finds any property of the trust is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold, removed or disposed of: Provided that, if any application is made by the trustee of any trust for seeking directions under sub-section (1), the Charity Commissioner shall decide such application within three months form the date of its receipt and if it is not practicable so to do, the Charity Commissioner shall record the reasons for the same. (2) It shall be the duty of every trustee or of such person to comply with the directions issued under sub-section (1).
11) At the outset, we make it clear that, we are not going into the issue of the membership list, we are concerned only with the question as to whether Respondent No.4 under Section 41A of MPT Act could have passed directions regarding election and thereby caused interference in the election proceedings. Rajesh Chittewan, PS 8/12 12) The question whether Respondent No.4, can interfere in the election matters and give directions in the election matter, is no more res integra. This Court in the matter of Lahudas Sambhaji Karad (supra) has held as under:
40. In the conclusion, therefore, I find that the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner has to be set aside in view of the fact that he could not hold enquiry under section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 in relation to the election process and the membership; that he failed to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to produce the record and that the list has been approved at the Governing Council meeting on 19-2-1992 which was attended by few members and not by majority of members because of the impending dispute and the impending conduct of non-cooperation was the approved list. The parallel meetings were held by other members of Governing Council and this is clearly borne out by the register produced on record. Hence the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner has to be set aside and the process of election should start from the stage at which it has been stopped. The 483 members have already cast their votes. They were eligible to vote in the election of 21-6-1992 as per the programme tendered by Election Officer Dhele. The supplementary elections will have to be held in respect of the newly added members namely 362 members as per Exh. A in Writ Petition NO. 1304/1992.
13) This Court in Shri Sheshrao Manikrao Shrirao Vs. Shri Vijay Ramgopal Farsoye and Ors., Writ Petition No.2104 of 2023, dated Rajesh Chittewan, PS 9/12 06/10/2023, has observed in para-6 as under:
6) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record we find that the scope of interference in election process under Section 41A of the Act of 1950 stand settled by the decision in Lahudas Sambhaji Karad (supra) which decision has been subsequently followed in Suresh Shamrao Jadhav (supra). It has been held in clear terms that matters pertaining to elections are beyond the provisions of Section 41A of the Act of
1950. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that despite such objection being raised, the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner entertained the application under Section 41A of the Act of 1950 on merits and set aside the order passed by the Election Officer. We find that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 41A of the Act of 1950 in the matter pertaining to election is not permissible. On this count the order suffers from being passed by an authority exceeding its jurisdiction. It is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
14) Similar view was taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the matter of Subhash Pandura Bandiwadekar & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 127.
15) In Vanmala Manoharrao Kamdi And Ors. Vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 688, this Court held that the scope of the powers exercised by the Charity Commissioner under Section 41A of the MPT Act are administrative in nature. The Rajesh Chittewan, PS 10/12 following is the relevant part of observation of this Court:
16) Though the Impugned Order is titled as “Administrative Order”, Respondent No.4 has infact issued directions regarding election of the trust and has even gone to an extent of directing the Returning Officer to consider the membership list which is mentioned in the Operative Part of the Impugned Order.
17) In our opinion, once, the election was declared on 3rd October 2025, there was no occasion for Respondent No.1 to file the proceedings under Section 41A of the MPT Act on 24th October 2025 before Respondent No.4. We find that the Order dated 31st October 2025, passed by Respondent No.4 is, therefore, bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Respondent No.4 by passing the Order, has virtually gone into the issue of membership list which was impermissible.
18) Be that as it may, the manner in which the parties have approached the Respondent No.4, inasmuch as, Prof. Vispi Balaporia, who appeared Rajesh Chittewan, PS 11/12 on behalf of Respondent No.1-trust, has virtually acceded to the prayers of the Application therein, speaks volumes.
19) For the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the Order dated 31st October 2025, passed by Respondent No[4], annexed at Exhibit ‘A’ to the Petition is quashed and set aside. We make it clear that we have not stayed the elections, which were scheduled to be held as per the notice dated 3rd October 2025.
20) We also have not decided the issue of membership in any manner and both the parties are at liberty to raise their appropriate contentions under appropriate provisions of law, if so advised.
21) The Writ Petitions are, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in Writ Petition No.15028 of 2025 and prayer clause (a) in Writ Petition (St.) No.35405 of 2025.
22) The concerned parties to act on an authenticated copy of this Order. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) Rajesh Chittewan, PS 12/12