A) Abstract / Headnote

The case involved the issue of delay in submitting Change Reports under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Supreme Court examined whether a delay of over 17 years in filing such reports, which inform changes in the administration of a public trust, could be condoned. The case also assessed the statutory implications of failing to submit Change Reports on time, the necessity of written applications for condonation, and the broader legal consequences on trusteeship and administration. The Supreme Court concluded that the delay was a curable defect under both the amended and pre-amended provisions of Section 22, emphasizing a justice-oriented, pragmatic approach over strict procedural adherence.

Keywords: Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, Change Reports, Limitation Act, condonation of delay, Vahiwatdar, trusteeship.

B) Case Details

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal Nos. 5323 – 5324 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
April 25, 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
A.S. Bopanna, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J.

vi) Author:
Justice Sanjay Kumar

vii) Citation:
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 62; 2024 INSC 339

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950: Sections 17, 18, 22, 66, and 70A
• Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5, Section 29(2)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
High Court of Judicature at Bombay’s judgment dated August 27, 2019, in Writ Petitions Nos. 8570 and 8571 of 2019.

x) Case is Related to Law Subjects:
Civil Law, Trusts and Trusteeship Law, Procedural Law.

C) Introduction and Background of the Judgment

The dispute arose over delayed Change Reports concerning the administration of a public trust, Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi. The trust was registered under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, with Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil initially serving as its Vahiwatdar. The eldest male family member was set to inherit the role. Upon successive deaths in the family, Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil, the third son, took over as Vahiwatdar. However, he delayed filing the Change Report for over 17 years.

The High Court invalidated the acceptance of Change Reports due to the absence of a specific order condoning the delay, contrary to Section 22. This prompted the appeal to the Supreme Court.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Registration and Succession:
   The trust was registered in 1952, with rules governing the succession of Vahiwatdar roles within the Patil family. After the original Vahiwatdar’s death in 1992, his son Ashok assumed the role but passed away in 1997. Jagdishchandra subsequently took over but failed to timely file a Change Report.

2. Delayed Reports:
   Jagdishchandra filed the first Change Report in 2015 (17 years late), accompanied by a delay condonation application. The Deputy Charity Commissioner accepted the report, noting no objections.

3. Subsequent Change Reports:
   In 2017, Jagdishchandra co-opted four trustees and filed another Change Report. Both reports were challenged by devotees of the temple, claiming procedural irregularities and a lack of inquiry.

4. High Court Ruling:
   The High Court invalidated both reports, emphasizing the absence of a formal order condoning the delay.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Can delay in filing Change Reports under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, be condoned without a specific written order?
2. Does failure to file a Change Report within the stipulated 90-day period invalidate the assumption of office by a Vahiwatdar?
3. Are subsequent changes nullified if the initial Change Report was filed belatedly?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. The appellants argued that the delay in filing the first Change Report was curable under Section 22, even without a formal written condonation order.
2. They contended that the High Court’s hypertechnical interpretation ignored substantive justice principles and the pragmatic application of law.
3. They relied on precedents, such as Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal & Ors. ([2010] 12 SCC 159) and Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. ([2021] 7 SCC 313), which emphasized liberal approaches to condonation of delays.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The respondents, devotees of the temple, argued that the 17-year delay showed gross negligence, undermining the sanctity of procedural requirements.
2. They emphasized that the absence of a condonation order was a fatal flaw under Section 22.
3. They raised concerns about the management of the trust and the validity of appointments made by Jagdishchandra.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Section 22, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950: Mandates filing of Change Reports within 90 days of change, allowing condonation for sufficient cause (2017 amendment).
2. Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963: Permits condonation of delays where sufficient cause is shown.
3. Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963: Extends the applicability of Section 5 to special laws.

I) Judgment

Ratio Decidendi

1. Delay is a curable defect: The Supreme Court held that Section 22’s provisions, both pre- and post-amendment, allowed condonation of delay in filing Change Reports.
2. Substantive justice over procedural rigidity: The Court underscored the need for a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach to condonation, aligned with precedents.
3. No automatic invalidation: The delay in filing Change Reports does not invalidate the assumption of office by a Vahiwatdar or subsequent appointments.

Obiter Dicta

1. A hypertechnical approach in procedural matters could obstruct justice.
2. Statutory provisions should be construed to promote substantive fairness.

Guidelines

1. Authorities must adopt a liberal approach to condonation of delays in public trust administration.
2. Courts should weigh justice and equity over procedural adherence.

J) Conclusion and Comments

This judgment clarifies procedural flexibility in public trust administration, balancing statutory compliance with fairness. It ensures that delays in filing Change Reports do not invalidate substantive administrative changes unless demonstrable harm occurs.

K) References

1. Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal & Ors., [2010] 12 SCC 159.
2. Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd., [2021] 7 SCC 313.
3. Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., [2013] 12 SCC 649.
4. Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
5. Limitation Act, 1963.