The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, confirming the validity of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017. Despite a 17-year delay in reporting changes to the Trust's administration, the Court held that such delays were curable under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Court emphasized that the delay did not automatically invalidate the appointment of a new Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and trustees, as long as the report was accepted without objections. It also noted that the delay condonation application was not challenged in time, making the High Court's hypertechnical approach unsustainable.

1. Introduction and Issue (Para 2-3):

The case concerns the acceptance of Change Reports related to the administration of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a public trust. The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matter to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, prompting the appeal.

2. Trust's History and Succession (Para 4):

Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, registered in 1952 under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, was administered by Vahiwatdars from the Patil family. After the death of successive Vahiwatdars, Jagdishchandra Patil assumed the role, although he was not the eldest son, with his family’s consent.

3. Legal Framework (Para 5-8):

The provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, including Sections 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22, govern the registration and reporting of changes in public trusts. The delay in filing Change Reports was addressed under Section 22, which allowed for delay condonation if justified.

4. Delay in Filing Change Report (Para 9-10):

Jagdishchandra filed the Change Report in 2015, well after the stipulated 90-day period. Despite the delay, no objections were raised, and the report was accepted. He later co-opted four trustees and filed another Change Report.

5. Devotees' Challenge (Para 11-13):

Five devotees challenged the acceptance of Change Report No. 899 of 2015, questioning Jagdishchandra's eligibility. They claimed the Deputy Charity Commissioner did not conduct a proper inquiry.

6. Proceedings before Joint Charity Commissioner (Para 14-16):

The Joint Charity Commissioner upheld the Change Reports, noting no objections from family members and dismissing the devotees' revision applications. The High Court, however, focused on the absence of a separate delay condonation order, remanding the matter.

7. Supreme Court's Reasoning (Para 19-25):

The Supreme Court noted that a proviso to Section 22(1), added in 2017, allows for condonation of delays. The delay did not invalidate the Change Report, as sufficient cause was shown. The High Court's focus on technicalities was deemed hypertechnical, as the delay was curable and had no bearing on the legitimacy of Jagdishchandra's position.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950:
   • Section 18: Registration of Public Trusts.
   • Section 22: Reporting changes in trust administration within 90 days.
   • Section 70: Appeals to the Charity Commissioner.
   • Section 66: Penal provisions for failure to report changes.
2. Limitation Act, 1963:
   • Section 5: Condonation of delay for sufficient cause.

Ratio Decidendi:

The delays in filing Change Reports for public trusts are not fatal, provided sufficient cause is shown. The 2017 amendment to Section 22(1) clarified that delays are curable, reinforcing that trusteeship and administrative positions remain valid despite delayed reporting, as long as due legal procedures are followed and no objections are raised.

Subjects:

Public Trust Administration, Delay in Change Reports, Legal Procedures under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

Delay Condonation, Change Reports, Charity Administration