Registration Of Two Distinct Public Trusts For Same Temple Not Allowed Under Maharashtra Public Trust Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that the registration of two distinct public trusts for a same temple having same properties is not allowed under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (MPTA).

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region in a Miscellaneous Application.

A Single Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed, “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. Allowing the registration of two distinct and separate public trusts with respect to the same temple having same properties is not contemplated by the scheme of the said Act.”

Advocates Sanjiv A. Sawant and Heramb Kadam represented the Petitioners while AGP V.S. Nimbalkar and Advocate Vinayak B. Gadekar represented the Respondents.

Case Background

A Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Respondent seeking to recall or review and set aside the Order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner (JCC), Pune Region, Pune in a Revisional Application of 2016 and seeking that the registration of the Trust known as Shri. Hanuman Maruti Deosthan Trust, at and Post. Kumshet, Taluka Junnar, District – Pune, be cancelled. The said Miscellaneous Application was filed on the ground that the JCC committed a procedural error/mistake of such a nature which vitiates the said Order. By the impugned Order, the said Misc. Application was allowed and the Order passed in an Inquiry Application was set aside. Hence, the case was before the High Court.

Issues for Consideration

The following points arose for consideration before the Court –

(A) Whether power of review can be exercised by the authorities under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, in the absence of specific statutory power of review in the said Act?

(B) Whether the impugned Order could have been passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner by invoking procedural review?

(C) Whether under the Scheme of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act is it permissible to register two separate Trusts for the same Public Trust?

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… it is settled principle of law that, unless the power of review is specifically or by necessary implication provided, the authority cannot review its own order. In the said decision, it is further held that, no doubt, if an order is obtained by exercising fraud, it would stand vitiated.”

The Court said that a review was not permissible in the absence of a provision in the Act conferring the power of review on the Tribunal either expressly or by necessary implication.

“It is significant to note that the Petitioners have also accepted that there is a Trust registered bearing No. A-792 (Pune) in the name of Shri. Maruti Mandir, Kumshet, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune i.e. the First Trust. It is also accepted that the said Maruti Mandir which is the subject matter of the Trust bearing No. A-792 (Pune) is also the same as mentioned in the Inquiry Application No. 674 of 2013 and in the Inquiry Application No.1682 of 2013”, it further noted.

The Court also took note of the fact that the properties which are shown as the properties of the First Trust are also shown as the properties of the Second Trust.

“It is also required to be noted that learned Joint Charity Commissioner in the impugned order has observed that the Petitioners were aware about the registration of the First Trust concerning the said Maruti Temple. It has been further observed that the order directing registration of another trust concerning same Maruti Temple has been obtained by the Petitioners by playing fraud and therefore 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”, it remarked.

The Court added that the rectification of an Order stems from fundamental principle that justice is above all and it is exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality.

“It is also required to be noted that the proceedings are pending for appointment of new trustees of the earlier Trust by filing Application under Section 47 of the said Act. The said Application has been filed by various villagers including few Petitioners i.e. some members of the new Trust”, it observed.

The Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the case is covered by procedural review. It, however, refused to examine the aspect whether Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is also applicable to the enquiry conducted under Sections 18 and 19 of the MPTA, which is the alternate submission the counsel for the Respondent.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Shri. Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan Trust v. Sau. Vina Yogesh Doke & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:51078)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Sanjiv A. Sawant, Heramb Kadam, Samiksha S. Mane, and Himanshu Kode.

Respondents: AGP V.S. Nimbalkar and Advocate Vinayak B. Gadekar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment