Shree Shahu Chatrapati Sikshan Sanstha Thr. Trustee Deepak R Powar v. Ld. Joint Charitu Commissioner Kolhapur Region And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1573 OF 2026 Shree Shahu Chatrapati Sikshan Sanstha Thr. Trustee Deepak R Powar

VERSUS

Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner Kolhapur Region And Ors. Mr. Ishaan Kapse, Advocate for Petitioner CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 9th APRIL, 2026.

P. C. :

1.

The Petitioner raises an exception to the order dated 09/12/2025 rendered by Jt. Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur rejecting application under Section 73A of The Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 ('the said Act'). The Change Report Bearing No. 6/2015 was presented wherein the Petitioner for the first time, presented an application on 03/09/2024, under IRESH MASHAL Section 73A of the said Act, claiming to be a person interested as Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date:

2026.04.20 10:31:37 +0530 contemplated under Section 2(10) of the said Act. The said application was, however, rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur on 30/08/2024. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the said order. 2.

So far as the Change Report is concerned, same was eventually decided on 21/02/2025 and the aggrieved party therein 1 of

had preferred an appeal. At an appellate stage, present Petitioner has again submitted an application taking recourse to Section 73A of the said Act, however, there is no disclosure in relation to filing of previous application and its rejection by order dated 30/08/2024. Considering the element of suppression on the part of the Petitioner, learned Jt. Charity Commissioner has rejected the application. 3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an interested person, as such, may be permitted to participate in the proceedings.

4.

The said submission does not warrant consideration taking into account the conduct of the Petitioner who has consciously chosen not to disclose the fact that earlier application presented under Section 73A of the said Act, which has suffered rejection and there is no challenge, as such has attained finality. In absence of non disclosure of the said rejection amounts to fraud upon the Court as held by S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. V. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors1 particularly, in paragraph no. 4 and 5 which reads as under:

".................

1(1994) 1 SCC 1 2 of

Finally, the High Court held as under: - The principle of this decision governs the instant case. At the worst the plaintiff is guilty of fraud in having falsely alleged, at the time when he filed the suit for partition, he had subsisting interest in the property though he had already executed Exhibit B-15. Even so, that would not amount to extrinsic fraud because that is a matter which could well have been traversed and established to be false by the appellant by adducing the necessary evidence. The preliminary decree in the partition suit necessarily involves an adjudication though impliedly that the plaintiff has a subsisting interest in the property.

5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often 3 of

than not, process of the court is being abused. Propertygrabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court - process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."

5.

Taking into account the conduct of the Petitioner, while not disclosing earlier rejection amounts to suppression of same and for want of challenge, same has attained finality. Therefore, the Jt. Charity Commissioner is justified in rejecting the application. 6.

As such, the Petition sans merits. Resultantly, the same stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to Chhatrapati Pramilaraje Raje Hospital, Kolhapur within period of two weeks. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.] 4 of