( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3474 OF 2010 1. Gopinath s/o Shukhadeo Ghule, R/o Naik Nagar, Asram Shala, Gevrai, Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed. 2. Sau. Bhagirathi Sugriv Gite, R/o Dhotra, Post Shirpur Ghat, Taluka Kej, District Beed. 3. Rambhau Daulatrao Gite, R/o Dhotra, Post Shirpur Ghat, Tq. Kej, District Beed. 4. Sau. Padminbai Gopinath Ghule, R/o Naik Nagar, Asram Shala, Gevrai, Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed. 5. Sugriv Daulatrao Gite, R/o Dhotra, Post Shirpur Ghat, Tq. Kej, District Beed. 6. Sau. Kantabai Ramdas Gite, R/o Dhotra, Post Shirpur Ghat, Tq. Kej, District Beed. 7. Bhagwan Sukhdeo Ghule, R/o Asram Shala Atravan Pimpari, Tq. and District Beed. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur, District Latur. 3. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Beed, Dist. Beed. 4. Gema Chafa Chavan, R/o Golegaon, Tq. Gevrai, District Beed. 5. Ratan Kishan Chavan, R/o Golegaon, Tq. Gevrai, District Beed. 6. Bhanudas Gema Chavan, R/o Golegaon, Tq. Gevrai, District Beed. ( 2 ) 7. Janardhan Thavara Chavan, R/o Golegaon, Tq. Gevrai, District Beed. 8. Rama Bhau Rathod, R/o Savargaon Tanda, Tq. Gevrai, District Beed. 9. Babu Marutiram Chavan, R/o Golegaon, Tq. Gevrai, District Beed. 10. Anna Laxman Devkar, R/o Selu, Tq. Gevrai, District Beed. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Vivek Dhage, advocate for the respondents No. 4 to 10. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th June, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge order dated 26-03-2010, rendered by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, in Misc. Application No. 33/2009 whereby delay of 7 years and 8 months caused in filing of appeal against order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, has been condoned. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival pleadings. Suffice it to say that the petitioners claimed that they are the trustees of a public trust, styled as ( 3 ) “Banjara Vikas Seva Sangh, Golegaon (Lamantanda)”. They alleged that the respondents No. 4 to 10 manipulated certain fabricated record and prepared forged documents in order to claim status as elected members of the Trust. They further alleged that the respondents No. 4 to 10 were the out-going trustees after election which was held on 25th March, 2001. According to the petitioners, they had submitted the change report after the said election vide CR No. 444/2001 which came to be accepted. They further alleged that subsequent elections have been taken at the interval of three (3) years and subsequent change reports were also approved by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The respondents No. 4 to 10, however, filed an appeal challenging the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in CR No. 444/2001 by filing an appeal in the year 2009. There was delay of 7 years and 8 months in filing of the appeal. The delay could not have been condoned in the wake of intervening circumstances and facts. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, however, by the impugned order, was pleased to condone the delay. The petitioners' case is that there was no substantial and sufficient explanation given by the respondents No. 4 to 10 in filing of the appeal after such a long delay of several years. Consequently, they seek indulgence of this Court and urge to ( 4 ) set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner on application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 4. The short question for consideration is whether the delay caused in filing of the appeal could be condoned in view of the reasons ascribed by the respondents No. 4 to 10 and that the impugned order is legal and proper ? 5. There cannot be two opinion about the settled legal position that condonation of delay is the matter which lies in the discretion of the Court. The discretion has to be exercised in judicial manner. Section 75 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 provides that relevant provisions of section 5 and section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable in the appeal proceedings filed under section 70 of the said Act. The combined reading of sections 70 and 75 would make it manifestly clear that if sufficient cause is shown, then the delay is condonable. It is also well settled that length of the delay is not of much relevance, but the substance in the cause shown for the delay is of significance. ( 5 ) 6. The petitioners, no doubt, filed the appeal after period of 7 years and 8 months against the order impugned by them. However, they categorically stated that they had no knowledge of the order dated 30-08-2001. They asserted that the change report was filed by the respondents No. 4 to 10 behind their back. They further asserted that the respondents No. 4 to 10 got prepared fabricated documents in support of the change report. According to them, they never gave no objection for effecting the change. Perusal of the order rendered in the enquiry of C.R. No. 444/2001 shows that it is not passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner after consideration of the material and holding of enquiry. Nor it is stated that the enquiry was dispensed with because no objection was given by the respondents No. 4 to 10 so as to dispense with the enquiry. That order is a stamped order on the application. The contention of the petitioners is that subsequent elections were held and, therefore, the respondents No. 4 to 10 could be attributed of the knowledge of the change which was reported in 2001. It appears that the subsequent change reports were filed together, for the first time on 15-12-2008. The change reports about so called subsequent elections were not filed within the stipulated period of 90 ( 6 ) days. 7. Section 22 (1) requires filing of the change report within 90 days from the date of occurrence of the change. Copy of the delay condonation application – Exh-R (S-3) shows that no explanation for such delay was given by the respondents No. 4 to 10. It was only vaguely stated that “due to unavoidable reasons, the filing of the change report had remained”. Without any enquiry, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner condoned the delay and approved the change report subject to cost of Rs. 50/-. It is not known as to whom the cost was payable and whether the cost was deposited. The entire record shows that the respondents No. 4 to 10 gave no tangible reasons for the delay caused by them in petitioners' filing subsequent change reports. They have no explanation for absence of any reason for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the change reports, but at the same time, they point out finger towards the respondents No. 4 to 10 for not furnishing sufficient reasons in delay condonation application filed by the latter in the appeal. It is the contention of the respondents No. 4 to 10 that the delay was attributable to lack of knowledge and throughout the relevant period, the record was prepared behind their back. This aspect may be ( 7 ) enquired into by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner during hearing of the appeal. It is well settled that the delay can be condoned if prima facie, sufficient cause is shown. It can be also condoned when the Court is of the opinion that there is a good case made out by the applicant/s of having good case on merits. It is pertinent to notice that section 22 (12) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act contemplates holding of enquiry by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in prescribed manner. It prima facie appears that no enquiry was held and only a stamped order was passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. This itself reveals existence of a good prima facie case in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 10. 8. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, invited my attention to certain observations in “Jagatnarayansingh Swarupsingh Chithere and others v. Swarupsingh Education Society and another” 1980 Mh.L.J. 72, which is also followed in Second Appeal No. 832/2009. A Single Bench of this Court observed that the remand of the matter was not required because of the intervening changes and when the new Committee had already taken charge. In the present case, the core question is whether the new Committee has taken over the charge. The subsequent elections and the changes are not the admitted ( 8 ) facts in the present case. The question regarding continuity of the charge or changes caused during the relevant period is yet to be determined by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the appellate jurisdiction. I mean to say that the question is not purely academic. It is explicit from the impugned order that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner condoned the delay for the reason that the respondents No. 4 to 10 could not be attributed knowledge of the acceptance of change report No. 444/2001. The view taken by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner cannot be regarded as arbitrary and totally baseless. 9. Considering the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, it is dismissed. All the issues are kept open and the appellate Court shall not consider any observations made in this judgement and shall independently consider whether there was any fraud committed or that whether really, the respondents No. 4 to 10 gave no objection for the same. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/3474-10