Appellant was registered as a Public Trust u/s. 18 of the 1950 Act – Mode of succession of managership was that Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil was to be the Vahiwatdar of the Trust and the eldest male member of his family was to succeed him – Vahiwatdar also empowered to co-opt others – First Change Report submitted by Jagdishchandra to record his name in register maintained u/s. 17 of the 1950 Act belatedly – First Change Report accepted and held to be legal and valid by Deputy Charity Commissioner – Jagdishchandra appointed four other persons as Trustees, by co-opting them – Second Change Report filed to record names of said four persons in register maintained u/s. 17 of the 1950 Act – Second Change Report held to be legal by Assistant Charity Commissioner – Appeals/Revision applications challenging orders accepting both Change Reports dismissed – Writ Petitions filed against orders accepting and confirming both Change Reports – Same allowed by High Court as no separate order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, condoning delay of over 17 years in filing of first Change Report as being contrary to s.
22 1950 Act – Consequently, second Change Report could not be sustained.
Held: S. 22 of the 1950 Act was amended in 2017 whereby proviso was added in s. 22(1) of the 1950 Act providing for condonation of delay in filing of a Change Report, if sufficient cause is shown – Not mandatory that written application be filed seeking condonation of delay and relief can be granted in that regard upon oral request, provided sufficient cause is shown for such delay – Even otherwise, 2017 proviso merely clarificatory in nature – Wording of s. 22(1) of the 1950 Act, as it stood earlier, did not negate applicability of s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and in consequence, s. 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked for condonation of delay in submission of Change Report – If Change Report not submitted within stipulated period, 1950 Act does not contemplate automatic invalidation of assumption of office as the Vahiwatdar of the Trust – Failure to file Change Reports would invite penal consequences that would flow only from orders passed by authorities concerned under the relevant provisions – When failure to file a Change Report would not be fatal in itself, delay in filing a Change Report cannot automatically impact the assumption of office by a Vahiwatdar of a Trust – Proviso added in s. 22(1) 1950 Act further indicates the same – There should be liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, nonpedantic approach while dealing with application for condonation of delay – Courts usually condone delay in filing as purpose is to advance justice. [Paras 19-22, 25]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.