Bombay High Court
Moreshwar Anant Chogale And Ors vs Rupesh Gaikwad And Ors on 18 February, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:8653
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1378 OF 2026
1. Moreshwar Anant Chogale
2. Sachin Gopal Gaikar
3. Sunny Nankumar Kshirsagar
4. Shrikant Anant Virkud
5. Madhusudan Janardhan Bhatkar
6. Bhagyat Vijay Vani
7. Santosh Soun Pate
8. Vaibhav Vidhydar Pendse ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Rupesh Gaikwad
2. Vijay Sudan Todankar
3. Suraj Digpal Hatiskar
4. Pranav Anand Havre
5. Prashant Parshuram Bhagat
6. Vishwas Jagannath Gurav
7. Suresh Ramji Pate
8. Chintamani Pandurang Chogale
9. Rupesh Chandrakant Mudrale
...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 3034 OF 2026
1. Kaushal Sadanand Wani
2. Gaurav Shrikant Shilkar
3. Siddhesh Jayant Kosabe
4. Pranav Kisan Todankar
5. Hitesh Chandrakant Chogle
6. Swapnil Suryakant Pate
7. Rajesh Vijay Pawar
8. Suraj Suresh Rane ...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Charity Commissioner, Mumbai.
3. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Alibag
4. Superintendent & Registrar Officer, Office
of Registration of Public Trusts, Alibag
5. Shree Ganpati Dev Aani Poojechi
1/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
Nemnuk Trust, a Public Trust Registered
under provisions of Maharashtra Public
Trust Act, 1950
...Respondents
Mr. A. R. Gole, for the Petitioners in WP/1378/2026.
Mr. Santosh Jadhav, for the Petitioners WP(ST)/3034/2026.
Mr. Laxman Deshmukh, a/w Ranjana Todankar, for
respondent No.2 in WP/1378/2026.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl. G.P. a/w A. C. Bhadang, AGP for the
State.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Reserved On: 12th FEBRUARY, 2026
Pronounced On: 18th FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT:
–
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners primarily assail the rejection of their
nomination forms for election to the office of the trustees of
Shree Ganpati Dev Aani Poojechi Nemnuk Trust by
respondent No.1, who has been appointed as an Election
Officer by the orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Alibag.
3. The background facts leading to these petitions can be
stated as under:
2/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
3.1 Shree Ganpati Dev Aani Poojechi Nemnuk Trust (“the
Trust”) is a public Trust registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (“the Trust Act, 1950”).
An application for settling a scheme of the Trust, being
Scheme Application No.6/1999, was filed before the Assistant
Charity Commissioner, Alibag. By an order dated 30 th July
2002, the Assistant Charity Commissioner settled a scheme.
3.2 Balkrishna Ganesh Bapat and Mahesh Waman Pilankar
filed another application under Section 50A(3) of the Trust
Act, 1950 seeking modification in the scheme settled by order
dater 30th July, 2002 for proper and effective management
and administration of the affairs of the Trust. By an order
dated 13th May, 2022, the learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner allowed the said application and settled a
scheme incorporated in the Annexure-A to the said judgment
and order.
3.3 Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by Vijay
Todankar and others, before the Charity Commissioner,
Mumbai, under Section 70 of the Trust Act, 1950. By a
judgment and order dated 15th November, 2022, the learned
Charity Commissioner was persuaded to quash and set aside
the aforesaid order settling the scheme, passed by the
3/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
Assistant Charity Commissioner, and remit the Scheme
Application No.2/2022 back to the Assistant Charity
Commissioner, Raigad, for a fresh inquiry and decision in
accordance with law.
3.4 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned Assistant
Charity Commissioner, post inquiry, was again persuaded to
allow the scheme application and settle the scheme with
modifications to the scheme, as incorporated in the
Annexure-A appended to the said judgment. The learned
Assistant Charity Commissioner, inter alia, directed that five
of the trustees namely; Mahesh Waman Pilankar, Nilesh
Jayram Wani, Rajendra Baban Bhusane, Prakash Sadanand
Bhatkar and Vijay Sadashiv Patwardhan would continue to
be the trustees of the Trust till the decision of the suits
instituted against the Trust. The learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner also appointed the Superintendent, attached
to the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner, as an
Election Officer to hold the election within a period of three
months and submit a report. The elected trustees were
directed to report the change.
3.5 Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, respondent No.1
issued a public notice on 31st December, 2025 and declared
4/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
the election programme on 2nd January, 2026. On 9th
January, 2026, respondent No.1 published election
guidelines. Under election programme, notified by
respondent No.1, the nomination forms were to distributed
and submitted on 13th January, 2026, during 12 noon to 3
p.m. After scrutiny of the nomination forms, the list of valid
nomination forms was to be published on 21 st January, 2026.
The election guidelines, inter alia, contained a clause that the
election would be held for maximum eight posts of the
trustees and on panel basis.
3.6 The petitioners in WP/1378/2026 formed “Suvarn
Ganesh Vikas Panel” and the petitioners in
WP(ST)/3034/2026 formed “Diveaagar Gaon Panel” and
submitted the nomination forms.
3.7 The nomination forms of the members of Suvarn
Ganesh Vikas Panel – the petitioners in WP/1378/2026 –
were rejected by respondent No.1 on the grounds: (i)
nomination forms were not filed within the stipulated time,
(ii) the candidates had not submitted proof of being resident
of Diveaagar for 15 years and (iii) the serial number of the
proposer and seconder in the voter’s list, were not correctly
mentioned.
5/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
3.5 The nomination forms of the members of Diveaagar
Gaon Panel – the petitioners in WP(ST)/3034/2026, were also
rejected on the ground that the nominations were not filed
within the stipulated time. And the nomination forms of all
the candidates were not accompanied by the information
sheet containing complete information alongwith signatures
of the proposer and seconder. In addition, nomination form
of Mr. Gaurav Shilkar, petitioner No.2, was invalid for not
filling in all the columns in the nomination form and for not
mentioning the serial number of the proposer and seconder,
in the voters list.
3.6 In contrast, the nomination forms of all the candidates
representing Ashtvinayak Panel – respondent Nos.2 to 9, in
WP/1378/2026, were accepted as valid.
3.7 Since the elections were to be held on panel basis and
nomination forms of the candidates representing the Suvarn
Ganesh Vikas Panel and Diveaagar Gaon Panel were rejected,
the further election process became a formality.
3.8 The petitioners have, thus, invoked the writ jurisdiction
taking a slew of exceptions to the rejection of their
nomination forms and also the legality and propriety of the
election process. The principal grievance of the petitioners is
6/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
that the election guidelines framed by the Election Officer
were not in conformity with the settled scheme. The Election
Officer conducted the election process in an arbitrary manner
and in breach of fundamental principles of natural justice.
The check list and the scrutiny forms were not notified in
advance and, thus, the petitioners were gravely prejudiced.
Though the petitioners, especially the petitioners in
WP/1378/2026, had submitted the requisite proof of
residence, yet, the Election Officer discarded the said
documents and rejected the nomination forms on the ground
of non-submission of proof of residence. An endeavour has
been made to demonstrate that the election process was
conducted in such fashion as to promote the interest of
Ashtvinayak Panel. Instead of ensuring a fair and
transparent election process, respondent No.1 has deprived
the petitioners of opportunity to contest the election. The
petitioners have, thus, prayed for setting aside the orders
rejecting their nomination forms and a direction to the
Election Officer to permit the petitioners to contest the
elections.
4. Affidavits-in-reply have been filed by respondent No.1,
Election Officer controverting each of the contentions in the
7/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
petitions. In substance, respondent No.1 claimed that the
election process was conducted in accordance with scheme of
the Trust, directions of the Assistant Charity Commissioner
and the election programme and guidelines, which were
notified well in advance. The petitioners have raised
grievances only after their nomination forms were rejected.
Therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
5. I have heard Mr. A. R. Gole, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners in WP/1378/2026, Mr. Jadhav, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners in WP(ST)/3034/2026, Mr.
Laxman Deshmukh, the learned for respondent No.2 in
WP/1378/2026 and Mr. Kedar Dighe, the learned Addl.
Government Pleader for the State, at some length. With the
assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have
perused the material on record including the copies of the
nomination forms submitted by the petitioners before the
Election Officer.
6. Mr. Gole, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in
WP/1378/2026, submitted that, first and foremost, the very
short period of three hours for submitting nomination forms
was per se an arbitrary and unreasonable. Secondly, the
Election Officer introduced conditions in the election
8/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
guidelines, which were in derogation of the approved scheme
of the Trust. For example, the election guideline No.25
provided for proof of 15 years residence at Diveaagar, contrary
to clause (7) of the Scheme, which requires 25 years
residence at Diveaagar. It was further submitted that
respondent No.1 did not accept the proof of residence of the
petitioners in WP/1378/2026, which the petitioners tendered
in conformity with the election guidelines. Therefore, the
rejection of the nomination forms of the petitioners by
ascribing technical reasons of alleged delay and non-
submission of proof of residence suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness. In any event, the very object of the directions
issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner to hold the
election would be defeated if the nomination forms of the
panels other than the panel, of which respondent Nos.2 to 9
are the members, are rejected.
7. As a second limb of the submission, Mr. Gole sought to
urge that elections were being held for the posts in excess of
the posts for which the Assistant Charity Commissioner has
directed the Election Officer to conduct the election. Banking
upon the order passed by the Assistant Charity
Commissioner on 15th October, 2025, Mr. Gole would urge
9/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has approved a
scheme in terms of which the maximum number of the
Trustees was to be 13. Out of them five Trustees were to be
permanent and a member of Mr. Ganesh Bapat’s family was
to be an ex officio Trustee. Thus, the elections were required
to be held for seven Trustees only. Yet, the Election Officer
declared the elections for eight posts of Trustees and accepted
the nomination forms for those eight posts. On this count
also, the entire election process stands vitiated, submitted
Mr. Gole.
8. Mr. Jadhav, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in
WP(ST)/3034/2026 supplemented the submissions of Mr.
Gole. In addition, Mr. Jadhav would urge, the election
process is vitiated as respondent No.1 failed to conclude the
said process within a period of three months as directed by
the Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated 15 th
October, 2025. Mr. Jadhav would further urge that,
respondent No.1 did not hold the election in a bipartisan
manner. The nomination forms were rejected on a technical
ground that the serial numbers in the voters list of the
proposer and seconder were not mentioned. It was urged
with a degree of vehemence that though respondent No.1
10/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
made endorsement as to time of the receipt of the nomination
forms of Suvarn Ganesh Vikas Panel and Diveaagar Gaon
Panel, yet, no such endorsement was made on the list of the
election forms received from the members of Ashtvinayak
Panel.
9. Mr. Jadhav would further urge that, eventually the
purpose of free and fair election became a casualty. It is,
therefore, necessary to allow all the candidates to contest the
election. To this end, Mr. Jadhav placed reliance on a
judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case
of Subhash Pandurang Bandiwadekar and ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra (WP/648/2025, dtd.21/1/2025), another
judgment of this Court in the case of Avinash Shegaonkar vs.
Ganpati Joshi, SA/501/2009, dtd.27/2/2014 and a judgment
of Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. Pragalb MR vs.
Returning Officer, 2017 Supreme OnLine (KER) 16411,
10. In contrast to this, Mr. Dighe, the learned Addl.
Government Pleader, stoutly defended the fairness and
integrity of the election process. It was forcefully submitted
that the petitioners have raised objections only after their
nomination forms were rejected. The election programme and
the guidelines were notified well in advance. At no point of
11/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
time, the petitioners raised any objection to any of the
clauses or timeline provided under the election programme
and the guidelines. The timeline and conditions applied to all
the candidates who wished to contest election. The
petitioners, having failed to submit the nomination forms
within the stipulated time, cannot be now heard to urge that
the period of three hours was very short.
11. Secondly, Mr. Dighe would urge, at any rate, the dispute
as to whether the nomination forms have been rightly
accepted or rejected cannot be a subject matter for
determination in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners have the
remedy of agitating the legality and correctness of the
rejection of their nomination forms in the proceedings which
may be filed under Section 22 of the Trust Act, 1950. At this
stage, when the election process has almost concluded, no
interference is warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction,
submitted Mr. Dighe.
12. To lend support to these submissions, Mr. Dighe placed
reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court
in the case of Shivaji Mule vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner,
WP/2573/2023, decided on 6/11/2023. Reliance was also
sought to be placed on a Division Bench judgment of this
12/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
Court in the case of Vinod Pundlikrao Chinchalkar vs. The
State of Maharashtra, WP/14417/2025, dtd.2/12/2025.
13. Mr. Dighe further submitted that the stand of the
petitioners in WP/1378/2026 that they had submitted the
proof of residence alongwith nomination forms is blatantly
incorrect. Inviting the attention of the Court to the copies of
the nomination forms, Mr. Dighe would urge the claim of the
petitioners that they had submitted the proof of residence is
demonstrably false. Parties who approach the Writ Court
with such incorrect statements do not deserve any hearing
much less relief, submitted Mr. Dighe.
14. Lastly, it was urged that the aspersions of partisan
attitude qua Respondent No.1 are wholly unjustified.
Banking upon record maintained by respondent No.1 and the
endorsement made by respondent No.1 about the receipt of
the nomination forms, Mr. Dighe would urge, the election
process has been conducted by respondent No.1 with utmost
fairness.
15. In the facts of the case, which have been adverted to
above, rather elaborately, on purpose, the core issue as to
whether this Court should interdict the election process, at
this stage, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, that poses itself for
13/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
consideration, is required to be appreciated in two parts.
First, the challenge to the rejection of nomination forms; for
which the petitions have been primarily filed. Second, the
larger issue of legality of the election process as such, which
was sought to be urged by Mr. Gole, in particular.
16. On the first count, the inquiry would be rather objective
and straightforward. As noted above, there is not much
controversy over the fact that the election programme was
notified by respondent No.1 on 2nd January, 2026 and the
election guidelines were published on 9th January, 2026.
Incontrovertibly, all the concerned were put to notice that the
election would be held on panel basis, and the nomination
forms were to be collected and submitted, within a period of
three hours i.e. 12 noon to 3 p.m., on 13 th January, 2026.
Implications of such short period would be considered a little
later.
17. The challenge to the rejection of the nomination forms,
is required to be examined on the anvil as to whether the
reasons for rejection of the nomination forms are borne out
by objective material, prima facie. The principal objection
was that, the nomination forms were not submitted by the
petitioners within the stipulated time. From the copies of the
14/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
nomination forms, tendered for the perusal of the Court, it
becomes evident that the Election Officer had made an
endorsement about the receipt of time of the nomination
forms submitted by the petitioners. For example, the
nomination form of petitioner No.2 in WP(ST)/3034/2026
bears an endorsement that it was received at 3.30 pm.
Likewise, the nomination forms of the petitioners in
WP/1378/2026 were received at 4.20 pm.
18. Apart from the endorsement on the nomination forms,
the Election Officer seems to have maintained a register of
receipt of nomination forms panel-wise. The extract of the
said register, annexed to the Affidavit-in-rejoinder filed on
behalf of the petitioners in WP(ST)/3034/2026, indicates that
the nomination forms of Diveaagar Gaon Panel members were
received at 3.30 pm. and those of Suvarn Ganesh Vikas Panel
were received at 4.20 pm.
19. Mr. Jadhav, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in
WP(ST)/3034/2026 made an attempt to demonstrate that
since no endorsement regarding the time of the receipt of the
nomination forms of the Ashtvinayak Panel was made, the
partisan attitude of respondent No.1 becomes evident.
15/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
20. I find it difficult to accede to this submission. At this
stage and in this proceeding, this Court would not be
justified in discarding the record maintained by the Election
Officer. Respondent No.1 has, prima facie, made endorsement
on the nomination forms as well as in the register of
nomination forms received about the time of receipt of the
nomination forms.
21. It is pertinent to note that in the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of respondent No.1, the events that transpired on
the date of filing of nomination forms are specifically narrated
and it is categorically mentioned that one of the members of
the Ashtvinayak Panel raised objection against accepting the
nomination forms beyond time in writing and, thus, the time
of receipt of the nomination forms of the petitioners was
mentioned. Therefore, the absence of endorsement at as to
the time of the receipt of the nomination forms of
Ashtvinayak Panel cannot be construed as an instance of
deliberate action to the prejudice of the petitioners. It would
be contextually relevant to note that, at the contemporaneous
time, no objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that
the nomination forms of Ashtvinayak Panel were not filed
within the stipulated time.
16/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
22. The material on record thus, prima facie, indicates that
the action of respondent No.1 of rejection of the nomination
forms, for having been filed beyond the stipulated period, is
backed by the objective material on record. If it is the
contention of the Petitioners that the record and
endorsements are incorrect, then that is a matter for factual
investigation. Such fact finding inquiry is neitehr warranted
nor permissible in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
23. As regards the second ground of rejection of nomination
forms for non-submission of proof of residence, the claim of
the petitioners in WP/1378/2026 that they had submitted
the proof of residence alongwith nomination forms is, prima
facie, belied by the copies of the nomination forms, tendered
for the perusal of the Court. When confronted with the
situation, Mr. Gole attempted to salvage the position by
canvassing a submission that though the petitioners had
submitted proof of residence independently and within time,
yet respondent No.1 declined to accept the same.
24. I am afraid to accede to the submission of Mr. Gole. It
defies comprehension that when the proof of residence, which
was an essential condition of eligibility, was required to be
submitted alongwith nomination forms, the candidates would
17/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
run the risk of filing the nomination form, without proof of
residence, and tender the same subsequently. Thus, such a
submission does not commend itself and lends heft to the
contention of respondent No.1 that the nomination forms
submitted by the petitioners in WP/1378/2026 were not
accompanied by proof of residence. At any rate, whether the
proof of residence was subsequently tendered and that too
within the stipulated period, enters in the arena of factual
dispute and cannot be legitimately determined in these
proceedings.
25. Certain allowance regarding not mentioning the correct
serial number of the proposers and seconders, in the voters
list, while filling in the nomination forms, may be given.
However, had that been the only reason, different
considerations would have come into play. The submission of
nomination forms beyond the stipulated period, rendered the
very effort of the the petitioners to contest the election
abortive. Under no circumstances, the action of an Election
Officer in rejecting the nomination forms submitted beyond
the stipulated period can be faulted at.
26. This propels me to the consideration of the core
submission on behalf of the petitioners that, the period of
18/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
three hours to file the nomination forms was too short. At
the first blush, the submission appears attractive. However,
on close scrutiny, in the considered view of this Court, the
submission does not merit acceptance, especially while
considering the challenge to the rejection of the nomination
forms.
27. As noted above, the election programme was notified on
2nd January, 2026. None of the petitioners or any other
person raised an objection to the election programme. On
the contrary, the petitioners participated in the election
process and filed the nomination forms. There is substance
in the submission on behalf of the Respondents that the
election programme and the guidelines was made uniformly
applicable to all the candidates. Therefore, after having
participated in the election process, the petitioners cannot be
permitted to take a somersault and contend that the period
was too short, especially after their nomination forms were
rejected.
28. In the matter of selection, the principle is well
recognized that, a person who consciously takes part in the
process of selection, cannot, thereafter turn around and
question the method of selection and its outcome. The same
19/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
analogy can be applied to the process of election. Having
taken part in the election process, with full knowledge that
the nomination forms were to be filled within the stipulated
period and the process was governed by the election
guidelines, it may not be permissible for the petitioners to
now turn around and question the propriety of stipulation of
short time for filing the nomination forms.
29. At this juncture, statutory regime under the Trust Act,
1950 regarding the change in the trustees or managing
committee of the trust assumes importance. Under Section
22 of the Trust Act, 1950, when any change occurs in any of
the entries recorded in the register kept under Section 17, the
trustees shall within 90 days from the date of occurrence of
such change, report such change to the jurisdictional Deputy
or Assistant Charity Commissioner. Inquiry into such
change, contemplated by Section 22 of the Trust Act, 1950, is
a judicial inquiry. The scope of inquiry under Section 22 is
not limited to the factum of change, as such, de hors the
legality thereof. A change to be accepted by the Charity
Commissioner and recorded in the Public Trust Register (PTR)
must be such change which has been lawfully made and not
merely a change which has, in fact, been made. In the
20/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
inquiry under Section 22, the Charity Commissioner is
required to pose unto himself a question as to whether there
has been a change de jure and not merely de facto. The
change reported, therefore, must be legal one, in the sense
that, it has been made in conformity with the Constitution
and/or Rules regulating the mode of succession where the
change is reported in the trustees/members of the managing
committee of the trust.
30. Thus, the question of legality of election process, or for
that matter, the improper acceptance or rejection of the
nomination forms, would be a matter which clearly falls
within the ambit of the inquiry envisaged by Section 22 of the
Trust Act, 1950.
31. It is in the aforesaid context the import of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge in the case of Shivaji Mule
(supra) is required to be appreciated. The learned Single
Judge, inter alia, observed as under:
“29.In the present case the election is of a trust
which is to be regulated by bye-laws and/or the
directions issued by the Charity Commissioner
under the Act. The election process and the result
are subject to the approval of the competent
authority U/Sec. 22 of the Act. It is special feature
of the administration of the trust under the
21/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOCprovisions of the Act that election comes within the
purview of Section 22 of the Act. It is mandatory
U/Sec. 22(1) of the Act to report the change to the
Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner within
90 days. This is a sufficient safeguard provided by
the statute. Therefore, any illegality in the process of
election including the membership cannot go
unnoticed. They are always decided in the scrutiny
of Section 22 of the Act. The election programme
has progressed to advance stage. The list of
contesting candidates is to be published on
06.11.2023. Thereafter the proper voting is to be
conducted on 26.11.2023 and result is also
scheduled on the same day. Therefore, I answer
point No. IV in the negative.”
32. In the case of Subhash Bandiwadekar (supra), on which
reliance was placed by Mr. Jadhav, the question in
controversy was materially distinct. In the context of the
decision by the Election Officer regarding the validity of
membership, this court enunciated that, the issue of validity
of membership cannot be decided by the Election Officer
while preparing the preliminary or final voters list. It is the
duty of the Election Officer to include name of every single
member in the voters list. This judgment, therefore, has no
bearing on the facts of the case at hand.
33. The decisions in the cases of Dr. Pragalbh MR (supra)
and Avinash Shegaonkar (supra), also turned on the peculiar
22/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
facts of the respective cases and do not govern the
controversy at hand.
34. The situation which thus obtains is that so far as the
issue of improper rejection of the nomination forms of the
petitioners, prima facie, the material on record does not
appear to be such as to vitiate the integrity of the election
process. The proper course for the petitioners would thus be
to agitate the alleged improper rejection of their nomination
forms in the proceedings which would be filed to report the
change under Section 22 of the Trust Act, 1950. Therefore,
this Court is not persuaded to exercise the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction to interdict the election process, on the ground of
improper rejection of nomination forms
35. On the aspect of the challenge to the election process
on the ground that the Election Officer has exceeded the
authority given by the Assistant Charity Commissioner by
prescribing eligibility criteria beyond the approved scheme
and holding election for more number of posts than directed
to be filled in by election, the controversy seems to revolve
around the question as to which of the schemes was the
approved scheme as of the date of the order passed by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner i.e. 15 th October, 2025 :
23/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
whether the scheme settled by the Assistant Charity
Commissioner by judgment and order dated 30 th July, 2002
in Scheme Application No.6/1999 or the scheme which was
settled by the Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated
13th May, 2022 in Scheme Application No.2/2022 ?
36. As noted above, the scheme settled by the Assistant
Charity Commissioner by order dated 13 th May, 2022 in
Scheme Application No.2/2022 was quashed and set aside by
the Charity Commissioner in Appeal No.165/2022 by order
dated 15th November, 2022. The necessary corollary and
sequitur is that, the trust continued to be governed by the
scheme which was settled and approved by the Assistant
Charity Commissioner by judgment and order dated 30 th
July, 2002 in Scheme Application No.6/1999. In the said
scheme dated 30th July, 2002, the eligibility criteria, under
clause (7), was 15 years residence at Diveaagar. It also
provided for a board of trustees of nine members; out of
which one trustee, from the family of Mr. Ganesh Bapat, was
to be ex officio and rest to be elected. In contrast, in the
scheme settled under the order dated 13 th May, 2022 (which
was set aside by the Charity Commissioner), the eligibility
24/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
criteria was enhanced to 25 years residence at Diveaagar and
the number of trustees was increased to 13.
37. In the scheme modified by the learned Assistant
Charity Commissioner by the judgment and order dated 14 th
October, 2025, the Assistant Charity Commissioner observed
that clauses (5) and (7) of the earlier scheme, which related to
the number of trustees and eligibility to become a trustee of
the trust, were retained.
38. There appears some lack of clarity in the judgment of
the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 15 th
October, 2025 in regard to the scheme which was considered
as the then existing scheme. However, in view of the
judgment of the Charity Commissioner in Appeal
No.CC/165/2022 whereby the scheme settled by an order
dated 13th May, 2022 was quashed and set aside, the scheme,
that held the field was the one that was settled by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated 30 th July,
2002 in Scheme Application No.6/1999.
39. In this view of the matter and especially having regard
to the fact that the objection to the election process on the
ground that more trustees (eight) were sought to be elected
was never raised; even in the instant petitions, the issue
25/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
cannot be determined in the abstract. Therefore, it would be
appropriate to keep this issue as well open to be adjudicated
during the proceeding under Section 22 of the Trust Act,
1950 while determining the legality and validity of the change
that would be reported.
40. For the foregoing reasons, at this stage, when the
election process is almost over, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the election. It would be open for the petitioners
to raise all the contentions in the inquiry under Section 22 of
the Trust Act, 1950. By way of abundant caution, this Court
clarifies that the aforesaid consideration would not preclude
the petitioners from challenging the legality and validity of
the election on all available grounds, including the improper
rejection of their nomination forms. Reserving the said
liberty, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
41. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The writ petitions stand dismissed.
(ii) The interim order dated 6th February, 2026 stands
vacated.
26/27
901-WP1378-2026_.DOC
(iii) When a change is reported to the Assistant Charity
Commissioner on the basis of the election in question,
the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all the
contentions as available in law, including the improper
rejection of their nomination forms, in the inquiry
under Section 22 of the Public Trust Act, 1950.
(iv) None of the observations in this judgment shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the grounds
of objections to change that may be raised by the
petitioners and the Charity Commissioner shall decide
the change report proceeding on its own merits and in
accordance with law, without being influenced by any
of the observations hereinabove.
(v) Subject to aforesaid clarification, rule stands
discharged.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
27/27
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/02/2026 17:47:03
