Not Permissible To Register Two Separate Trusts For A Single Temple Under Maharashtra Public Trust Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated under the scheme of Maharashtra Public Trust Act it is not permissible to register two separate trusts for single temple.

The Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that “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.”

In this case, the issues before the bench were:

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?

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

The petitioner submitted that there is no express power of review conferred on the authorities by the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and, therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner has no jurisdiction to review his own Order. And in absence of any provision in the said Act granting an express power of review, the same could not be made, so the impugned Order is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction.

Further, it was contended by the petitioner that the scheme of the said Act provides registration of two trusts of a single charity. To support this contention, Section 50A (2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 was referred.

The Respondent submitted that Respondent filed Review Application as the documents produced by them were not considered. As those documents were important and, on the basis Supreme Court's decisions, the Joint Charity Commissioner reviewed his order on the ground that, there is procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter. Thus, no illegality was committed in passing the impugned order.

Further, it was contended by the Respondent that the scheme of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act does not provide for registration of two trusts with respect to the single temple.

The bench pointed out that under the scheme of the Act, it is permissible to register only one public trust concerning one Charity or temple and thus, it is required to consider the legality and validity of the impugned order.

The Bench observed that 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.

The bench stated that in a proceeding which was itself vitiated by an error or mistake which goes to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding, in such cases, the power of procedural review can be invoked.

“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. Therefore, it is clear that order allowing the registration of public trust for the same temple with same properties by order dated 19th June 2014 and confirmation of same by order dated 5^th January 2017 by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner amounts to committing a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and consequently the order passed therein,” added the bench.

In view of the above, the bench dismissed this petition.

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

Counsel for Petitioner: Sanjiv A. Sawant a/w Heramb Kadam & Samiksha S. Mane i/b Mr. Himanshu Kode

Counsel for Respondent: Vinayak B. Gadekar

Click Here To Read/Download Order