Maharashtra Public Trusts Act| Delay In Filing 'Change Report' Cannot Automatically Invalidate Assumption Of Office By ‘Vahiwatdar’ Of Trust: SC
The Supreme Court observed that the delay in filing a Change Report cannot automatically invalidate the assumption of office by a Vahiwatdar of a Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
The Bench pointed out that the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act of 1950) was amended in 2017 to provide for condonation of delay for filing a Change Report, which was duly filed in this case. The Court stated that it was a settled position of law that a written application was not mandatory to be filed while seeking condonation of delay as the relief could also be granted upon an oral request, provided sufficient cause was shown for such delay.
The issue pertained to the acceptance of Change Reports concerning the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of the Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi (public trust). The Bombay High Court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.
Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “Notably, as per the statutory scheme, failure to file Change Reports would invite penal consequences under Section 66 of the Act of 1950, which provides that whoever contravenes Section 22 and fails to report a change would be liable to pay a fine of ₹10,000/-. Continued failure to do so may invite more adverse consequences, as provided in the Act of 1950, but such consequences would flow from the orders passed by the authorities concerned under the relevant provisions and would not stem from such failure automatically.”
Sr. Advocate Shyam Divan represented the appellant, while Sr. Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari appeared for the respondents.
The Trust's history dates back to 1952 when it was registered under the Act of 1950, for maintaining the Shri Mallikarjun Temple at Shelgi. Over the years, the succession of management passed through Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil's family, with Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil assuming the role of Vahiwatdar despite not being the eldest male member, following the demise of his elder brother, Ashok Mallikarjun Patil.
The legal framework under the Act of 1950 mandates the timely filing of Change Reports within the stipulated 90 days, failure of which can invite penal consequences. The issue arose when Jagdishchandra submitted Change Reports belatedly along with a delay condonation application and it was accepted. Certain devotees questioned the eligibility of Jagdishchandra to be the Vahiwatdar of the subject Trust, alleging that he had unlawfully filed the Change Report and obtained approval.
The opponents to the Change Report had contended that Jagdishchandra was not the eldest son of Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil, but the Assistant Charity Commissioner noted that Ashok Mallikarjun Patil, the eldest son, had died issueless and the second son, Satish, claimed no interest in the Trust.
“The provisions of the Act of 1950 do not contemplate automatic invalidation of his assumption of office as the Vahiwatdar of the Trust in such a situation. Once a Trust is registered as a Public Trust under Section 18 of the Act of 1950, it becomes the statutory duty of the authorities concerned to maintain proper records in relation to such Trust, including the particulars of its Administrators and Trustees,” the Court remarked.
The Court also pointed out that the devotees could not have challenged the Change Reports simply on the ground that the Trust was not taking proper care of the Temple.
The Bench concluded that explaining that “separate machinery is provided in the Act of 1950 to address such issues and it is for them to take recourse to such statutory remedies, if so advised. Their repeated attempts to attack the Change Reports relating to assumption of office by the new administration of the Trust only indicates their inimical attitude thereto and to the family of the founder, Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil. All in all, much ado about nothing!”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 339)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Shyam Divan; Advocates Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Nitin Habib, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, and Bhagwant Deshpande
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari; AOR A. Selvin Raja
