53 WP No.8698.2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8698 OF 2014 SHRAMSAFALYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AMALNER, DIST-JALGAON VERSUS CHANDRAKANT BHANUDAS BHADANE AND OTHERS *** Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay G. Talhar AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. D. Patil Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Girish Rane *** WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1456 OF 2026 IN WP/4571/2008 SHRAMSAFALYA EDUCATION SOCIETY AMALNER, JALGAON VERSUS CHANDRAKANT BHANUDAS BHADANE AND ORS *** CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 19th August, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The petitioner has challenged the two separate orders rendered by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Inquiry Case No. 22/2005. The order under challenge is dated 03.01.2014, allowing the amendment application presented by respondent no. 1 to 3 to incorporate additional paragraph in the application under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public TrustAct, 1950. As well as the order under challenge dated 2026:BHC-AUG:37303 53 WP No.8698.2014 -2- 09.01.2014, rejecting the application presented by the petitioner - Trust below Exhibit 40, seeking to recall an earlier order dated 07.12.2007 rendered below Exhibit 25. 2. The respondent no. 1 was working as the Principal of Ramai Sharirik Shikshan Shashtra Mahavidyalaya, a college run by the petitioner Trust. Following a departmental inquiry initiated in 2004 thereafter, the services of respondent no. 1 were terminated by the trust, which was endorsed by the College Tribunal in Appeal No. NMU-06/2008 on 07.09.2010. 3. The respondent no. 1 along with respondents no. 2 and 3 presented Inquiry Application No. 22/2005 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, seeking initiation of action of removal against the trustees. The respondent no. 1 presented an application below Exhibit 25 for production of documents, which was allowed by the Authority allegedly without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to contest. Proceedings under Section 41-D of the Act application was later dismissed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 12.06.2009, resulting the petitioner to withdraw a pending writ petition against the order of production of 07.12.2007. 53 WP No.8698.2014 -3- 4. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 to 3 challenged the order of dismissal dated 12.06.2009 before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7867/2011, which was disposed of on 28.11.2011, setting aside the dismissal and relegating the parties to the Joint Charity Commissioner to decide the application under Section 41-D afresh. 5. After the remand, the petitioner presented application below Exhibit 40 to recall the order dated 07.12.2007 below Exh. 25, containing direction of production of documents which suffered rejection, whereas the respondents presented Exhibit 42 seeking to amend the main application, which came to be allowed. These two orders are under challenge. 6. Mr. Talhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner Trust submits that the orders under challenge are illegal since those are rendered in derogation of the principles of natural justice. The order directing the production of documents dated 07.12.2007 was passed on the same day its copy was served on the petitioner's advocate, depriving the petitioner - trust of an opportunity to offer a reply or address arguments. The learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the Joint Charity Commissioner erred in 53 WP No.8698.2014 -4- observing that the order had become final merely because the earlier writ petition was withdrawn unconditionally. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that there is no provision under Section 41-D of the Act proceedings to permit amendments and allowing the changes after a delay of seven years, as such, is impermissible. Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition. 8. Mr. Rane, the learned counsel respondent No. 1 supports the orders under challenge submitting that the order of production of documents dated 07.12.2007 attained finality while the petitioner chose to withdraw Writ Petition No. 4571/2008 without seeking any liberty from this Court to raise the challenge again at a later stage. Since this Court remanded the case for a fresh hearing on the merits, the petitioner cannot circumvent order directing to produce relevant records which has attained finality. 9. The counsel further submits that the allowing the amendment application below Exh. 42, does not alter the nature of the case owing to the mismanagement of the charitable trust, which is the basis for an inquiry under Section 41-D of the Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 53 WP No.8698.2014 -5- 10. The learned AGP supported the order under challenge and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 11. After considering the submissions of litigating sides and perusing the material on record, the order dated 07.12.2007 directing to produce documents could be reviewed or recalled vide Exhibit 40 cannot be accepted, since the petitioner having raised challenge to the same before this Court and chose to withdraw the petition unconditionally. Once a writ petition challenging an interlocutory order is withdrawn without reserving any liberty to challenge it afresh, attains finality. As such, the Joint Charity Commissioner rightly observed lacking the jurisdiction in review of an order that had effectively become final. 12. Moreover, an inquiry under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act is an inquiry aimed at protecting the interest of public trusts from mismanagement and the production of records is a basic requirement to unearth the truth. It is a well-settled principle of law that authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers possess the ancillary power to allow amendments to ensure all relevant facts are before the court. 53 WP No.8698.2014 -6- 13. In any case, the proposed change sought to be incorporated do not change the nature of the application; merely provides additional particulars of alleged mismanagement and adverse reports during the trustees' tenure. The petitioner retains a full and fair opportunity to present a supplementary reply and lead evidence to rebut the added grounds during the inquiry. As such, there is no prejudice to the petitioner. 14. In view of the above, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly exercised the jurisdiction while rendering the orders under challenge. There is no error or illegality that warrants consideration. 15. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. Resultantly, pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi