23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11511 OF 2026 Chembur Karnataka Sangha ... Petitioner versus Ranjankumar R. Amin … Respondent Mr. Faran Khan with Mr. Santosh Salekar, for Petitioner. Mr. Anilkumar R. Amin, for Respondent. Mr. H.K.Sudhakara, reporting Trustee, present. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 9 SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 6 January 2026 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai in Revision Application No.238 of 2024, whereby the revision preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated 29 August 2024 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, on an application (Exh.16), thereby allowing the intervention application under Section 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, (‘the Trusts Act, 1950), came to be rejected. 3. The Petitioner is a public charitable trust registered under the Trusts Act, 1950. The Respondent was the managing committee member and the secretary of the Petitioner trust. A Change Report for the year 2019-20, being SSP 1/5 2026:BHC-AS:37577 23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc Change Report No.ACC/HO/3271 /2021, was filed by the Petitioner. Respondent filed an application for intervention in the said Change Report. The Petitioner claimed that, the Respondent was initially suspended from the membership of the trust and, subsequently the membership of the Respondent was terminated by a resolution passed in AGM dated 3 November 2019. 4. By an order dated 29 August 2024, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the intervention application observing, inter alia, that the Respondent was a member of the trust and the alleged termination of the membership of the Respondent was a disputed fact and, thus, the Respondent appeared to be a person having interest in the trust. 5. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a revision before the Charity Commissioner. By the impugned order, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the revision application finding no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 6. Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the authorities were in error in placing burden on the Petitioner – trust to show that the membership of the Respondent was terminated. Since the termination of the membership of the Respondent has not been set aside by any authority, the mere fact that the Respondent disputed termination of his SSP 2/5 23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc membership of the trust, cannot be a ground to hold that the Respondent is a person having interet in the trust. 7. Mr. Khan further submitted that, in earlier proceedings, especially Revision Application No.90 of 2021 in relation to the Change Report for the year 2018-19, the claim of the Respondent that he was entitled to object to the change, was rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Thus, the Respondent could not have been permitted to intervene in the Change Report proceedings for the succeeding year. 8. Indisputably, the Respondent was not only a member of the Petitioner Trust, but also a member of its Managing Committee and a Secretary of the trust. The case of cession of interest of the Respondent in the trust is premised on the purported termination of the membership of the Respondent by the Petitioner. The factum of termination of the membership of the Respondent was put in contest. The authorities below were, thus, justified in holding that the Respondent cannot be said to be a person who had no interest in the trust. The definition of the person having interest in the trust contained in Section 2(10) of the Trusts Act, 1950, is not of restrictive nature as under sub-section 2(1) of the Act, the definition of “the person having interest” is inclusive. It would be contextually relevant to note that the word, “includes” in section 2(10) came to be substituted for the word, “means” by Bombay 28 of 1953. It is trite, the use of the word, “includes” in a definition SSP 3/5 23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc gives the term an expansive meaning. In contrast the legislature uses the word, “means” to give a precise and definite meaning. In substituting the word, “includes” for “means”, the legislative intention of expanding the scope of the term, “person having interest” becomes explicitly clear. An inclusive definition, as is trite, covers in its fold the matters which are not specifically enumerated in the said definition. 9. The object of conferment of locus on “person having interest” becomes clear if the nature of the authority of the trustees is appreciated. As noted above, the property of the trust vests in the trustees for the benefit of beneficiary or for the discharge of the object of the trust. It is quite conceivable that the trustees may discharge their duties in furtherance of the object of the trust or in derogation thereof. In a given case, the trustees may not be available or may have become defunct or rendered themselves disabled or even might be acting against the interest of the trust. Therefore, the persons who have an abiding interest in the affairs of the trust have been conferred the locus to seek remedies and participate in the proceeding, so that the object of the trust and, ultimately, public interest are not defeated. 10. In the case at hand, the Respondent who was indisputably a member and the Secretary of the Petitioner Trust, cannot be said to be ceased to have interest in the trust for the reason that the Petitioner alleges that the membership of the Respondent stood terminated, which fact is disputed by SSP 4/5 23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc the Respondent. Whether, in the facts of the case, there is any substance in the objection raised by the Respondent to the Change Report is a matter of merit. Thus, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, this court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the Trusts Act, 1950. 11. The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 5/5 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 11/09/2026 19:37:36