In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has clarified that under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, it is not permissible to register two separate trusts for the same temple. The division bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar dismissed a writ petition that challenged an order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, who had canceled the registration of a second trust concerning the same temple already under a registered trust.
The case involved the Shri Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan Trust, Kumshet, Taluka – Junnar, District – Pune. The petitioners challenged the Joint Charity Commissioner’s decision dated 2nd February 2017, which recalled a previous order that had allowed the registration of the said trust. The Commissioner’s revised decision cited procedural illegality and suppression of material facts by the petitioners.
Read Also:-Mortgage Breach Not Void If Lease Deed Specifies Consequences: Bombay High Court
"If, the registration of two separate public trusts are permitted with respect to the same trust properties then there will be innumerable problems in the administration of the public trusts." Justice Jamdar stated, emphasizing that such a situation is not contemplated under the scheme of the Act.
The original trust, known as Shri Maruti Mandir Trust, was registered in 1952 under PTR No. A-792 (Pune) for the same temple and property. The petitioners, aware of this, filed a fresh application in 2013 to register another trust for the same temple under the name Shri Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan Trust. They allegedly used forged documents, including a No Objection Certificate bearing the name of the village sarpanch, to support their application. The Assistant Charity Commissioner initially accepted this application in June 2014.
However, when objections and complaints from local villagers and Respondent No. 1 surfaced, including police complaints and complaints before the judicial magistrate, it was revealed that the petitioners had concealed the existence of the earlier trust. Based on this, the Joint Charity Commissioner reviewed the previous decision.
In the present case, the documents which were not considered by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner shows registration of the public trust in the year 1952 of the same temple with same properties, the High Court noted. It concluded that the previous order of June 2014 and its confirmation in January 2017 suffered from a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself.
The court also addressed the petitioners’ argument that the Maharashtra Public Trust Act does not expressly allow a review of orders. While agreeing that express statutory review powers are not provided in the Act, the court recognized the authority's inherent power to review in instances involving procedural errors or fraud.
"A party should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation, and, in such circumstances, the Court should not perpetuate the fraud," the bench remarked, supporting the Charity Commissioner's right to recall the previous registration.
The court referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. and Rajender Singh v. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, to support the view that review powers can be invoked when a decision is vitiated by fraud or procedural error.
In light of these observations, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan Trust and upheld the cancellation of its registration. It also noted that proceedings were already pending under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act for the appointment of trustees in the original 1952 trust.
Case Title: Shri. Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan Trust, Kumshet, Taluka – Junnar, District - Pune & Ors. v. Sau. Vina Yogesh Doke & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5567 of 2017
Date of Judgment: 25 November 2024
Counsel for Petitioners: Sanjiv A. Sawant, Heramb Kadam, and Samiksha S. Mane
Counsel for Respondents: Vinayak B. Gadekar
