( 1 ) 918-WP-1088-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 918 WRIT PETITION NO. 1088 OF 2023 Rushikesh Shivaji Barhate And Another VERSUS The Joint Charity Commissioner And Others ….. Mr. Khot Abhinay D, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent – State. ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026. PC :- 1. The petitioner filed a proceeding under Section 50-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”) for framing a scheme for a public trust, namely, Shri Mallikarjun, Manwat, Tq. Manwat, District Parbhani, bearing registration No.A/3508/Parbhani. 2. After concluding the requisite procedure, the said application under Section 50-A came to be partly allowed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, thereby approving a scheme. 3. The petitioner found the scheme deficient to some extent as regards the directions or findings for appointment of the First Board of Trustees to take up further proceedings of the Trust, including elections of new trustees, etc. Kiran Kawre 2026:BHC-AUG:40011 ( 2 ) 918-WP-1088-2023 Hence, the petitioner took recourse to Section 70-A of the Act, 1950 before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, thereby putting this grievance on record. The said application came to be turned down by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner on 25 November 2021 in Revision Petition No.31 of 2021. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. Khot, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner seeks very limited reliefs. He would submit that it was for the Revision Authority, which has overall control over the affairs of the Trust and the offices established under the Act, 1950, to remove the difficulty that has arisen in the peculiar facts of this case. He would submit that the petitioner can neither take recourse to Section 47 of the Act nor has the authority designated the First Board of Trustees while framing the scheme. He would submit that, in fact, while filing the scheme under Section 50-A of the Act, the petitioner has given the list of the First Board of Trustees, which has not found any reference in the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 5. He would further submit that the petitioners has no claim that any particular person be appointed out of the suggested names in the First Board of Trustees. However, the grievance is that the authorities should, at least have mentioned the First Board of Trustees so that further proceedings could be Kiran Kawre ( 3 ) 918-WP-1088-2023 taken. He points out that in the impugned order passed by the Revision Authority, the Revision Authority has not at all touched upon this aspect of the matter. With these contentions, he submits that the petition be allowed and appropriate directions be issued to the authorities. 6. Mr. Sonpawale, learned AGP, has appeared to assist the Court with instructions from the Charity Commissioner’s office. He would submit that in view of Section 56-C read with Section 56-RR of the MPT Act, the Tahsildar could be seen as a Trustee of the subject Trust. He would then point out the pleadings of the petitioner in Exhibit – A, wherein also there is also a recital that the Tahsildar is the Trustee. He submits that if that is so, the petitioner ought to have approached the Tahsildar with such request. However, he fairly accepts that the impugned order, particularly paragraph No.8 thereof, is in contravention with such instructions received by him. For the sake of convenience, paragraph No.8 of the impugned order is reproduced thus: “(8) As per the Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 the powers are wasted to the Commissioner for Charity appointing the trustees where there is no trustee or the trust can filled. is vacancies for such trust until the petition settled scheme the Assistant Charity Commissioner, by be administer In present the learned Parbhani, but, there is no any trustees appointed which shows that, there is and in absence trustees no any of to the Trust. of After considering Kiran Kawre ( 4 ) 918-WP-1088-2023 the wording of section 50 (A any specific provisions appointment of first board of absence of any clause in that regard in trustees and in the scheme, I found that, the revision petition could not be allowed. Hence, I have recorded my findings accordingly and proceed to pass the following order:- 1) The revision petition is dismissed. 2) Inform to the concerned lower authority accordingly. 3) Entry of this order be taken on Schedule-I. 4) Record and proceedings be sent back to concerned Authority. 5) No order as to costs.” 7. I find that the said order is prima facie deficit to arrive at any conclusion. The Revision Authority, being head of the Trust in the State in terms of Section 70-A of the MPT Act, 1950, has overall control over all the affairs and all the records falling under its jurisdiction. Considering that the present proceeding is not adversarial litigation, and where a party is seeking simply directions as regards the appointment of First Board of Trustees, it was expected that the Revision Authority, which is the supreme authority for the Trusts in the State not only to pass an order but also to guide the parties in that regard. The Revision Authority has made reference to Section 47 but has neither discussed nor guided the petitioner as regards the authority with whom such an application could be filed. Even otherwise, it is also noted by this Court that the Revision Authority has not considered the law laid down by Kiran Kawre ( 5 ) 918-WP-1088-2023 the Division Bench of this Court in 1995 in the case of Gyandeo Devre Vs. Ganpat & Ors.1. It must be borne in mind that it has been held by this Court that Section 47 of the Act of 1950 could be invoked only for the purposes which are mentioned in the Section itself, and not for other purposes. Now, this is a case wherein Section 50-A of the Act was invoked by the petitioner and the scheme is framed. 8. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to relegate the matter back to the Revision Authority i.e., the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, with a request to pass appropriate and clear order on the point of appointment of the First Board of Trustees. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner on 15 September 2026 with a copy of this order. Thereafter, within three months, the Revision Authority is requested to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the process of law, as observed above. 9. The Writ Petition stand disposed of accordingly. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] 1 1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 99 Kiran Kawre