7-WP17007-2925+.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17007 OF 2025 Nav Chaitanya Mitra Mandal ...Petitioner Versus The Joint Charity Commissioner Pune And Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13284 OF 2025 Nav Chaitanya Mitra Mandal Through Chairman Ashok P. Suravase ...Petitioner Versus The Joint Charity Commissioner Pune And Ors. …Respondents Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Ashish S. Gaikwad, Mr. Ujjwal Agandsure, Mr. Anirudh R. Rote, Mr. Sagar G. Bhoir, Mr. Ashish Jadhav and Savita Gaikwad, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sohan Gunjal, for Respondent Nos.3 to 6. Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for the State in WP/17007/2025. Ms. Savina Crasto, AGP in WP/13284/2025. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 27th June, 2025 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, in Appeal No. 102/2023 and Appeal No. 101/2023, whereby the appeals preferred by the respondents against the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune, 1/5 7-WP17007-2925+.DOC thereby accepting the Change Report Nos.2560/2021 and 2561/2021, came to be allowed and the change reports filed by the petitioners were rejected. 3. It appears that the change reports were allowed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 14th December, 2021, and respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein had preferred an appeal on 16th October, 2023. In the intervening period, the respondents had filed an application for review before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and those review applications were dismissed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 21st August, 2023. Thereafter, the appeals were preferred by the respondents. 4. In the appeals before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, the petitioners – respondents therein, primarily raised the ground that the appeals were filed beyond the stipulated period of limitation. By the impugned orders, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was persuaded to reject the said contention on behalf of the petitioners by ascribing reasons. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has expressly recorded that no other ground was urged on behalf of the respondents therein. 5. The principal grievance of Mr. Desai, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners is that, the petitioners were not 2/5 7-WP17007-2925+.DOC provided an effective opportunity of hearing to support the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on merits. Since the bar of limitation was urged, if the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was not inclined to accept the said contention and decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeals on merits, an effective opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioners. 6. Mr. Gunjal, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6 countered the submissions on behalf of the petitioners. It was urged that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has explicitly recorded that though the respondents – petitioners herein, appeared before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner yet they did file reply to the appeals. It was for the petitioners to agitate all the grounds before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Since the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has adverted to the grounds raised in the appeal-memo, it cannot be said that the appeals have not been decided on merits. 7. I have perused the impugned orders. At more than one places, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded that the respondents have resisted the appeals on the ground of bar of limitation only. Even in the concluding paragraph of the 3/5 7-WP17007-2925+.DOC impugned orders, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner observed that the respondents therein had not raised any other ground except the bar of limitation. It thus becomes clear that, since the learned Joint Charity Commissioner decided to entertain the appeals discarding the objections as to the limitation, the petitioners did not get an opportunity to resist the appeals on merits nor did the learned Joint Charity Commissioner hear the petitioners on merits of the order impugned before him. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to remand the appeals back to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner for afresh decision on merits. 9. The petitions, thus, stand partly allowed. 10. The impugned orders stand quashed and set aside. 11. The appeals stand restored to the file of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner for afresh decision in accordance with law. 12. It is hereby made clear that, the petitioners shall not be entitled to raise the ground of bar of limitation in preferring the appeal. 4/5 7-WP17007-2925+.DOC 13. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner is requested to decide the appeals as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of three months from 5th October, 2026. 14. The parties shall appear before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner on 5th October, 2026. 15. No separate notice be issued to the parties to these petitions. 16. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and all contentions of all the parties are kept open for adjudication by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. 17. The petitioners are at liberty to file an affidavit-in-reply to meet the grounds raised in the appeal-memo, within a period of one week from today. 18. The respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein are at liberty to file an affidavit-in-rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners, within one week thereafter. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 5/5