Bombay High Court
Bhausaheb Bhimaji Kulat And Others vs Satish Jagannath Nannaware on 10 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:34435
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.1810 OF 2022
1. Bhausaheb Bhimaji Kulat
Age 68 years, Occ. Agriculture
2. Ramesh Gotiram Kardile
Age 61 years, Occ. Agriculture
3. Ashok Ramchandra Zine
Age 54 years, Occ. Service
4. Bhausaheb Balaji Tambe
Age 68 years, Occ. Agriculture
5. Shivaji Baburao Jadhav
Age 56 years, occ. Agri,
6. Ramabai Yadavrao Pacharane
Age 71 years, Occ. Household,
All R/o. Burudgaon, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
7. Sau. Varsha Shivaji Kale
Age 49 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Kedgaon, Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners
(Orig. Applicants)
Versus
1. Satish Jagannath Nannaware
Age 52 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Babar Mala, Burudgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar
3. Joint Charity Commissioner,
Pune Region, Pune ... Respondents
(Orig. Opponents)
.....
Shri. Vivek Dhage h/f. Shri. N. C. Garud, Advocate for the Petitioners
Ms. M. S. Mhase, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 - Served.
.....
2
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 18, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 10, 2025
FINAL ORDER :-
. By the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the Petitioners have challenged the Judgment and order dated
27.11.2019 passed by the Respondent No.3 - Jt. Charity Commissioner,
Pune Region, Pune, in Appeal No.7 of 2015 and order dated 25.06.2014
passed by the Respondent No.2 - Asstt. Charity Commissioner,
Ahmednagar, in Change Report No.272 of 1999.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present Petition are as under :
2.1. The Petitioner No.3 submitted the Change Report in the Executive
Body of the "Sina Education Society, Burudgaon, Tq. Nagar, Dist.
Ahmednagar, PTR No.F-3183", for the tenure 1999-2004. According to
him, the tenure of the old Executive Committee of the Trust expired and
therefore, in the Annual General Meeting dated 16.05.1999 new
Executive Committee was unanimously elected. The Education Society
was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, Act
of 1950') in the year 1994. There are approved rules and regulations for
the better administration of the trust, which provide for maximum 9
trustees and minimum 7 trustees and the tenure of the first Executive
Committee was for 5 years. As 3 Members, namely, Ashok Sambhaji
3
Babar, Respondent No.1 - Satish Jagannath Nannaware and Shaikh
Noorjaha Nisar Ahmed did not pay the annual membership fees of the
Trust and they did not attend the meetings of the Trust, their
membership was cancelled in the meeting dated 15.10.1996 by majority
and 1 Member was elected in the said meeting as the Trustee which
made total trustee as 7 in number. As the tenure of the 7 Members was
completed on 05.05.1999, and in the Annual General Meeting dated
16.05.1999, 7 Petitioners came to be elected on the Managing
Committee. Thus, the above referred Change Report was filed.
2.2. The Respondent No.1 raised objection to the said Change Report.
According to him, the documents along with the Change Report were
false and fabricated and no change occurred in the Trust. He was the
Life Member of the Trust and therefore, could not be removed. As the
Change Report was filed with ill intention, the same was liable to be
rejected. The Respondent No.2 - Asstt. Charity Commissioner rejected
the said Change Report. The Petitioners challenged the decision of the
Respondent No.2 - Asstt. Charity Commissioner, in Appeal before
Respondent No.3 - Jt. Charity Commissioner. The Appeal was also
dismissed.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned
Advocate for the Respondent No.1. With their assistance, perused the
4
relevant papers on record.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that,
the Affidavit of Respondent No.1 stating that, he had no objection to
allow the said Change Reports was not considered by the Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 - Authorities. The notice of the Annual General Meeting
was issued to the Respondent No.1 and the same was sent by post under
the certificate of posting. The resolution came to be passed in the
meeting. The Respondent No.1 raised objection belatedly in 2008. The
Bye laws of the Society provides for types of members and also provides
for cancellation of membership. The Intervention Application filed by
the Respondent No.1 in Change Report No.797/2004 was rejected. The
Audit Reports of the Society are filed from time to time. Both the
impugned orders are passed without considering the material on record
and the same were liable to be set aside and the Petition be allowed. In
support of the contention, he cited the Judgments in (a) Secretary,
Shiorai Education Society, Wani vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Aurangabad and Others, [2000(2) Mh.L.J. 752], (b) Central Bank of
India, Bombay vs. Sion Bakers and Confectioners Private Ltd., Bombay
and Others, [2008(5) Mh.L.J. 772], (c) Hislop Education Society,
Nagpur vs. Presiding Officer, University College Tribunal, Nagpur and
Others, 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 419], (d) Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati and Others vs. Sandip Ram Meghe and Others, [2016 (5)
5
Mh.L.J. 711].
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the contesting
Respondent No.1 that, the Petitioners, who had filed the Change Report,
should stand on their own footing. There were initially 9 Founder
Members of the Trust. Their names are mentioned in the Schedule-I.
Out of them, 3 Members were not issued the notice of the meeting.
There is no iota of evidence to show that the said 3 Members, including
the Respondent No.1 were removed. No change in the executive body
was reported for 1996. The alleged executive body of 1996 had no
existence in the eye of law, as the evidence led before the Respondent
Nos.2 - Asstt. Charity Commissioner clearly show that the Respondent
No. 1 was the Life Member, and therefore no question of paying yearly
membership fees by him arises. The Affidavit purported to be filed by
the Respondent No.1 giving no objection to the Change Report, was not
filed by the Respondent No.1. When the final order was in favour of the
Respondent No.1, there was no question of challenging the interim
order of rejection of Intervention Application. The Special General Body
Meeting was not legally convened. The requisition was not as per
bye-laws and Rules, and mandate of prior 10 days' notice was not
followed. Nothing is shown by the Petitioners as to how the impugned
orders are incorrect. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same
be dismissed.
6
(a) In Secretary, Shiorai Education Society, Wani (supra), it is
observed that,
"It is the general rule that whenever limitation is not
prescribed for filing appeal or revision, the aggrieved person
is required to prefer the same within reasonable time and the
words of statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, the Court
must give effect to that meaning irrespective of
consequences.'
(b) In Central Bank of India, Bombay (supra), it is observed that,
'any evidence without pleading is inadmissible and the
admission is the best evidence against the person giving it'.
(c) In Hislop Education Society, Nagpur (supra), it is observed that,
"the disputes between various faction in trust or the societies
which manage educational institutions have become very
common. If it were to be held that in the intervening period
there is a vaccum, it would obviously lead to anarchy and
mismanagement in the affairs of the institutions which are
run by such societies or trusts. Therefore, as observed in the
judgments referred to, "de factor doctrine" has taken birth
out of necessity to maintain a continuity of authority in
management of affairs of such societies or trusts."
(d) In Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati (supra), it is
observed that,
"Filing of a change report for adjudicating whether removal
of life members from the trust is not at all contemplated
under the scheme of the Act. There would be, therefore, no
occasion to decide or deal with that question. The law does
not wait for future cause of action and hence plaintiff having
cause of action cannot be told to wait ad infinitum."
6. Coming to the case at hand, the Change Report submitted by the
Petitioner No.3 has been rejected by the Respondent No.2 - Asstt.
7
Charity Commissioner and the said rejection order is maintained in the
Appeal by the Respondent No.3 - Jt. Charity Commissioner. There is no
dispute on the aspect that there were in all 9 founder trustees at the
time of registration of the Trust including the Respondent No.1. There
is also no dispute on the aspect that the Respondent No.1 was the
founder and Life Member of the Trust. The learned Advocate for the
Respondent No.1 referred the bye-laws of the Society, the copy of which
is enclosed as Exh. 'G', Page No.118. Bye-law no.5 shows the categories
of Members, one is Life Member (vktho lHkkln) and other is General
Member. It further shows that, the person who pays Rs.1,000/- at one
time, he becomes Life Member and the General Members are required to
pay Rs.100/- per year. I find substance in the contention of the learned
Advocate for the Respondent No.1 that, being Life Member Respondent
No.1 was not required to pay yearly membership fees, therefore his
membership cannot be cancelled for want of payment of yearly
membership fees.
7. The Change Report, which was objected by the Respondent No.1,
is in respect of the Executive Committee of 7 members in the year
1999-2004. The copy of the said document is at Exh. 'A' at page no.31.
It mentions that, the old Committee which was at the time of
establishment of the Society be removed and in place of that the names
of the 7 newly elected members be included. The Reporting Trustee i.e.
8
Petitioner No.3 submitted the documents along with the Application,
which included the copy of resolutions in the meetings dated
10.07.1996 and 15.10.1996. However, it is nobodies case that the
Change was effected pursuant to the said resolution dated 15.10.1996
which was in respect of removal of some trustees and election of new
body.
8. Respondent No.2 - the Asstt. Charity Commissioner observed that,
it was the duty of the Reporting Trustee to mention all the factual and
true facts before the authority while reporting the change and mere
filing of the minutes of the meeting was not sufficient. He further noted
that, there was no change in the Schedule-I pursuant to the resolution in
the General Body Meeting dated 15.10.1996. It further observed that,
the reporting trustee while reporting the change referred to the old
executive body constituted at the time of the registration of the Trust.
This shows that, the subsequent change, as is the case of the Reporting
Trustee, cannot be effected unless the previous change, which according
to the Reporting Trustee was in the meeting dated 15.10.1996, is
effected. It is rightly observed by the Respondent No.2 - Asstt. Charity
Commissioner that the Reporting Trustee has failed to satisfy regarding
occurrence of the change according to the rules and regulations of the
Trust, therefore, the Change Report was liable to be rejected.
9
9. The observations of the Respondent No.3 - Jt. Charity
Commissioner that, the names of the outgoing trustees were not
mentioned in the Change Report is in consonance with the Change
Report. The material and the evidence on record was considered by the
Respondent No.3 - Jt. Charity Commissioner and it upheld the rejection
of the Change Report. The observations in the said order is supported
by the documents on record. It noted that, the notice of the meeting
was not signed by the President as required by the bye-laws of the
Society and hence, it was not as per the provisions of the Constitution of
the Trust. It further noted that, there is no provision in the Trust-deed to
disqualify the trustees and the tenure of the trustees who were the
trustees at the time of the constitution was till 2000, which indicate that
before the tenure of the earlier trustees, the trustees were elected.
10. There are concurrent findings by the Respondent No.2 - Asstt.
Charity Commissioner and the Respondent No.3 - Jt. Charity
Commissioner which are borne from the material before them. There is
no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the
Respondent No.2 - Asstt. Charity Commissioner and Respondent No.3 -
Jt. Charity Commissioner. The above referred cases also are of no
assistance to the Petitioners in the present facts and circumstances of the
case. I find no merit in the Petition and hence, the following order.
10
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) GGP Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 10/12/2025 16:30:26