- Case
- MEHERNOSH JAMSHED JASSWALLA v. LALITRAO BHASKARRRAO PATIL AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 14-01-2025)
- Law
- Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, Societies Registration Act.
Facts: A dispute arose within the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Mumbai, a registered society and public trust, regarding the management and control of the Trust. Several Change Reports were filed under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act (MPT Act) to report changes in trustees. Simultaneously, an application was filed under Section 41D of the MPT Act seeking the removal/suspension/dismissal of certain trustees. The Petitioner contended that the application under Section 41D was not maintainable during the pendency of the Change Reports under Section 22. The Charity Commissioner rejected the Petitioner's application seeking framing of issues of maintainability and jurisdiction.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner challenged the order of the Charity Commissioner rejecting their application in a Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay.
Issue: Is it permissible for the Charity Commissioner to entertain and decide an application for the removal of trustees under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, when Change Reports relating to the appointment of those trustees are pending under Section 22 of the same Act?
Holding: Yes, the Charity Commissioner can entertain and decide an application under Section 41D of the MPT Act even when Change Reports are pending under Section 22, as these sections operate in different spheres.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 22 of the MPT Act deals with recording changes in the register of public trusts, while Section 41D deals with actions against trustees for past misconduct. The Court held that the pendency of Change Reports does not provide an "umbrella of protection" to trustees from actions under Section 41D. The Court distinguished the Division Bench judgment in Dinkar Shankarrao Patil, stating that it applied to a situation where Section 41A was being used to indirectly decide issues involved in a Change Report. The Court clarified that while deciding an application under Section 41D, the Charity Commissioner should ensure that disputes regarding the validity of appointment of trustees are not indirectly determined. The court stated, "the Charity Commissioner cannot usurp the jurisdiction under Section 22 by misusing the power under Section 41-D for ordering ouster of the entire governing body of the trust so as to ensure that the rival group takes over affairs of the Trust."
