Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. When this appeal came up for final hearing on 30 th September, 2025, the learned senior counsel Mr. Gorwadkar brought to my attention, an amendment made to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act on 01 st September, 2025 by Maharashtra Ordinance No.VII of 2025. By this amendment, Section 50B is sought to be introduced and in the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is stated that the amendment was brought to resolve the issue of jurisdiction between the Civil Court and the Charity Commissioner.

3. Mr. Gorwadkar, learned senior counsel submits that by virtue of this amendment, Charity Commissioner has the power to modify the scheme, which was settled by the Civil Court prior to 1950. He submits that this amendment is retrospective or at least retroactive.

4. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this amendment is not applicable to the facts of the present case at all and assuming it is applicable, it is prospective in nature.

5. Admittedly, the learned District Judge did not have the benefit of Section 50B of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, since the impugned order is dated 27 th June, 2013 whereas the amendment which is sought to be relied upon by the appellant today is of the year 2025 and was inserted w.e.f. 01st September, 2025.

6. In my view, Section 50B has a relevance in adjudicating the issue of jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the appeal back to the learned District Judge for adjudication on all the issues of Section 50B, including its applicability or non-applicability to the facts of the present case. The learned District Judge will also adjudicate upon whether the said amendment, if applicable, is prospective, retrospective or retroactive. This Court too would like HMK 3 01. FA-700 to 703-2014.doc to have the benefit of the view of the learned District Judge before it takes upon itself the exercise of interpretating Section 50B in the present case. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 27th June, 2013 is set aside and remanded to the District Court at Pune to be adjudicated on all the issue of Section 50B.

7. In so far as, the issue on whether the action of the Charity Commissioner was justified in law or not, the same would arise only on adjudication of the applicability / non-applicability of Section 50B and its retrospectivity or prospectivity or retroactivity. If the learned District Judge comes to a conclusion that the provisions of Section 50B are not applicable in any manner whatsoever to the facts of the present case, then in that case, the findings of the District Judge in order dated 27th June, 2013 in so far as the action of the Charity Commissioner is concerned will stand undisturbed and both the parties will be at liberty to challenge the same if they so desire, before the appeal Court. This will avoid repetition of adjudication on merits. Both the parties have agreed to this course of action being adopted.