Bombay High Court
Santacruz Gauthan Charity Trust And Anr vs The Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai ... on 21 November, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:50472
28-Wp 8184-2013 with CA1637-2014-Final.doc
MPB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8184 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1637 OF 2014
Santacruz Gaothan Charity Trust ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Joint Charity Commissioner ... Respondents
Maharashtra State & Ors.
Mr. Abdetaiyeb Q Motiwala, for the Petitioner.
Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2025
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner questions the order dated 6 April 2013 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. By the said order, a letter dated 31 March 1982 has been taken into consideration in Dispute No. 2 of 1987. That dispute was originally filed under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
3. On 31 March 1982, a letter was submitted stating that in Application No. 2 of 1978 under Section 36 of the Act, permission had been sought to sell the property of Jaffarji Rasoolji Trust. The Charity Commissioner granted sanction to sell the trust property 1 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 23:08:58 ::: 28-Wp 8184-2013 with CA1637-2014-Final.doc by order dated 15 March 1979. Based on that sanction, a deed of conveyance was executed in favour of the purchaser on 29 March 1979.
4. Thereafter, a Change Report under Section 22 read with Rule 13 of the Rules was filed before the Charity Commissioner on 11 July 1979. The Change Report was declined on the ground that the trust was registered as Santacruz Gaothan Charity Trust, while the Change Report was submitted in the name of Jaffarji Rasoolji Trust.
5. In that background, an application was filed treating it as a request to correct the irregularity that had occurred in the record. The prayer was to substitute the name of Santacruz Gaothan Charity Trust with Jafferji Rasoolji Charity Trust so that the documents could be corrected and a fresh Change Report could be filed.
6. The Charity Commissioner accepted the application despite objections by the objector. The Commissioner held that the incorrect name was an inadvertent mistake and required correction in the record.
7. The issue that arises for determination is whether, after disposal of the proceedings under Section 36 of the Act, the Charity Commissioner has the authority to modify its order for substituting the name of one trust with that of another. Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act reads as follows.
"36. Alienation of immovable property of public trust .-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of trust --2 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 23:08:58 :::
28-Wp 8184-2013 with CA1637-2014-Final.doc
(a) no sale, exchange or gift of any immovable property, and
(b) no lease for a period exceeding ten years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or a building, Belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner. [Sanction may be accorded subject to such condition as the Charity Commissioner may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest, benefit or protection of the trust;
(c) if the Charity Commissioner is satisfied that in the interest of any public trust any immovable property thereof should be disposed of, he may, on application, authorise any trustee to dispose of such property subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest or benefit or protection of the trust.
Provided that, the Charity Commissioner may, before the transaction for which previous sanction is given under clause (a),
(b), or (c) is completed, modify the conditions imposed thereunder, as he deems fit:
Provided further that, if such condition is of time-limit for execution of any contract or conveyance, then application for modification of such condition shall be made before the expiry of such stipulated time.
(1A) The Charity Commissioner shall not sanction any lease for a period exceeding thirty years under this Act.
(2) The Charity Commissioner may revoke the sanction given under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) on the ground that such sanction was obtained by fraud or mis-
representation made to him or by concealing from the charity Commissioner, facts material for the purpose of giving sanction; and direct the trustee to take such steps within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of revocation (or such further period not exceeding in the aggregate one year as the Charity Commissioner may from time to time determine) as may 3 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 23:08:58 ::: 28-Wp 8184-2013 with CA1637-2014-Final.doc be specified in the direction for the recovery of the property.
Provided that, no sanction shall be revoked under this section after the execution of the conveyance except on the ground that such sanction was obtained by fraud practiced upon the Charity Commissioner before the grant of such sanction.
(3) No Sanction shall be revoked under this section unless the person in whose favour such sanction has been made has been given a reasonable opportunity to show-cause why the sanction should not be revoked.
(4) If, in the opinion of the Charity Commissioner, the trustee has failed to take effective steps within the period specified in sub-section (2), or it is not possible to recover the property with reasonable efforts or expense, the Charity Commissioner may assess any advantage received by the trustee and direct him to pay compensation to the trust equivalent to the advantage so assessed.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in exceptional and extraordinary situations where the absence of previous sanction contemplated under sub-section (1) results in hardship to the trust, a large body of persons or a bona fide purchaser for value, the Charity Commissioner may grant ex- post-facto sanction to the transfer of the trust property, effected by the trustees prior to the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Public Trusts (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 (Mah. IV of 2018)], if he is satisfied that, -
(a) there was an emergent situation which warranted such transfer,
(b) there was compelling necessity for the said transfer,
(c) the transfer was necessary in the interest of trust,
(d) the property was transferred for consideration which was not less than prevalent market value of the property so transferred, to be certified by the expert,
(e) there was reasonable efforts on the part of trustees to secure the best price, 4 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 23:08:58 ::: 28-Wp 8184-2013 with CA1637-2014-Final.doc
(f) the trustees actions, during the course of the entire transaction, were bonafide and they have not derived any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise, out of the said transaction, and
(g) the transfer was effected by executing a registered instrument, if a document is required to be registered under the law for the time being force.
8. Section 36 creates a clear statutory framework. It places an embargo on any sale, exchange, gift, or long-term lease of immovable property belonging to a public trust unless there is prior sanction of the Charity Commissioner. The provision reflects legislative intent that property of a public trust must be protected with vigilance and that alienation can take place only when the authority is satisfied that such transfer is necessary in the interest of the trust. Sub-section (2) recognises a narrow power to revoke the sanction. That power arises only if the sanction has been procured by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of material facts. Sub-section (5) introduces the concept of ex post facto sanction in exceptional cases where absence of prior sanction may cause hardship to a trust or bona fide purchaser. Even that power is hedged with strict conditions. The statutory scheme shows that once proceedings under Section 36 are concluded, the authority becomes functus officio except to the extent permitted by the law. The Charity Commissioner cannot reopen or modify an order except within the limited grounds recognised by the statute.
9. It is settled that every quasi-judicial authority has limited power to correct clerical, arithmetical, or typographical mistakes. This power exists to avoid prejudice caused by accidental slips. The Supreme Court has consistently held that such correction is 5 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 23:08:58 ::: 28-Wp 8184-2013 with CA1637-2014-Final.doc confined to mistakes that have no bearing on the merits of the matter. The petitioner before the Charity Commissioner had raised a serious allegation of fraud and misrepresentation. In that background, reliance on the principle of accidental slip had no application. The Court in State of Punjab v Darshan Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 328, explained the scope of such corrective power and clarified that it cannot be used to undertake substantive adjudication or revisit concluded findings.
10. The Supreme Court in Darshan Singh considered the scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that the section enables correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission. It does not permit the court to alter the judgment on merits. The judgment becomes final once pronounced. It can be varied only through an appeal or review if the statute provides. The power to correct accidental slip cannot be stretched to cover intentional or substantive omissions. The Court cautioned that no authority can, under the cloak of Section 151 or Section 152, modify its original decision by adding new findings or changing its operative part. The decisions in Dwaraka Das v State of M P ,(1999) 3 SCC 500 and Jayalakshmi Coelho v Oswald Joseph Coelho (2001) 4 SCC 181 reiterate this principle.
11. The Supreme Court further explained that the foundation of Section 152 lies in the maxim that an act of court should prejudice none. Only an unintentional error of the authority can be rectified. An arithmetical mistake is an error of calculation. A clerical mistake is an error in writing. An accidental slip arises 6 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 23:08:58 ::: 28-Wp 8184-2013 with CA1637-2014-Final.doc from oversight. The power is ministerial and not judicial. The authority cannot invoke it to revisit merits. It cannot be used to allow fresh arguments or to introduce new conclusions. This principle was summarised in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1047
12. Applying these principles, it becomes necessary to examine the nature of the error that was projected before the Charity Commissioner. The mistake was not of the kind that can be corrected by invoking the power to rectify clerical or typographical slips. It concerned the very identity of the trust which had approached the authority for permission to alienate immovable property. Such an issue strikes at the foundation of the proceedings. It determines who sought the sanction, on whose behalf the authority acted, and whether the statutory conditions were duly satisfied. This is not a minor irregularity. It is a substantive matter that demands full adjudication.
13. Once the proceedings under Section 36 were concluded in March 1979, the authority had discharged its duty under the statute. Its jurisdiction stood exhausted. The scheme of Section 36 permits reopening of the order only on clearly defined grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of material facts. Beyond that, the authority has no power to revisit its decision. The law does not permit the Charity Commissioner to recall or modify a concluded order merely because a party later contends that the name mentioned was incorrect.
14. The application filed in 1982 did not point to any 7 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 23:08:58 ::: 28-Wp 8184-2013 with CA1637-2014-Final.doc accidental slip. It sought a substitution of one trust for another. That invocation alone shows that the matter was not ministerial. It required inquiry into facts, examination of records, and determination of rights. Such an exercise falls beyond the narrow boundaries of the corrective jurisdiction. The authority could not introduce a new name or rewrite an order that had attained finality. Doing so would amount to passing a fresh order under the guise of correction, which the law does not countenance.
15. In this view, the order impugned cannot be upheld. It travels beyond the power granted to the Charity Commissioner and disturbs the settled position of law governing finality of proceedings under Section 36.
16. In my view, the Joint Charity Commissioner adopted an approach not supported by the statutory scheme. The error asserted was not a simple irregularity. It required examination of the identity of the applicant-trust, the nature of the permission granted, and the validity of the subsequent conveyance. It was not capable of correction under the doctrine of accidental slip. The impugned order therefore cannot stand.
17. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
18. No costs.
19. Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 8 ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2025 23:08:58 :::