Powers Of Charity Commissioner Are For 'Supervision', Not 'Moral Correction': Bombay High Court Quashes Order Asking School To Issue Public Apology

Observing that the powers of a Charity Commissioner under section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act are for 'supervision' and not for 'moral correction', the Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 29) quashed an order directing a Nashik-based School to issue public apology in two widely circulated newspapers there, after parents accused the School of 'cheating' them by misrepresenting that the institute was affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Board.Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar noted that section 41A empowers the Charity Commissioner to ensure proper administration of the trust, proper accounting of income, and proper application of such income to trust objects. The additional power, the judge said, is to issue directions where trust property is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated, or wrongfully disposed of."The phrase proper administration cannot be given an unguided meaning. Administration refers to management of trust property, funds, and statutory duties attached thereto. It does not extend to every activity carried on by a trust or every grievance raised against its management. If proper administration were construed in moral sense, unconnected from property and income, Section 41A would become an open ended source of authority, which the legislature has consciously avoided," the judge said. The judge noted that in the instant case, the complaint before the authority did not allege misuse of trust money, improper investment, illegal alienation of property, failure to maintain registers, or breach of fiduciary duty in dealing with trust assets. But the grievance was related to alleged misrepresentation concerning CBSE affiliation and the consequences flowing therefrom for students and parents. "However serious such grievance may be, it does not touch upon trust property, trust income, or statutory financial administration as contemplated by Chapter V-A. The direction to issue a public apology does not protect trust property, regulate trust income, or ensure statutory compliance under Sections 35 to 36B. It does not prevent waste, damage, or alienation of trust assets. It does not correct any defect in accounting or application of income. Such a direction, therefore, falls outside the permissible scope of Section 41A when read in its proper statutory context. Section 41A is thus a power of supervision and not of moral correction. Its purpose is to preserve the financial and proprietary aspect of public trusts. Any exercise of power under this section must demonstrate a clear and direct nexus with trust property, trust income, or statutory administration of the trust in the sense explained by Chapter V-A," Justice Borkar held. The provision does not authorise directions unconnected with property or income of the trust, the court made it clear. According to the School, its Trust - RB Bohora Educational & Welfare Trust, was registered under the Act on April 23, 1998 and this Trust was permitted to establish the School - New Era English School in the year 1999, which obtained affiliation from the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) Board in the 2002.In January 2004, upon requests made by parents, the Trust secured a 'No Objection Certificate' for the purpose of seeking affiliation of the school with the CBSE Board. On February 28, 2009, an inspection of the school premises was conducted by the inspection committee of the CBSE Board, which rejected its application. Even the appeal against the initial order was rejected. Based on this, some parents lodged a complaint with the Charity Commissioner, Nashik alleging that the School misrepresented that it had affiliation with the CBSE and therefore cheated the parents and students. However, Justice Borkar quashed and set aside the order passed by the Charity Commissioner, Nashik on June 28, 2010.Appearance:Advocates CG Gavnekar and Rohit Parab appeared for the Petitioner Trust. Assistant Government Pleader VS Nimbalkar represented the State.Advocates Ajinkya Jagdale and Shekhar Jagtap instructed by J Shekhar & Co. represented the Parents. Advocates Suhas Deokar and Tanmay Shumbavanekar represented some other Respondents. Case Title: RB Bohora Education & Welfare Trust vs Vijay Mundaware (Writ Petition 5595 of 2010)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 45Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Powers Of Charity Commissioner Are For 'Supervision', Not 'Moral Correction': Bombay High Court Quashes Order Asking School To Issue Public Apology

Narsi Benwal

Tags