Supreme Court Holds Delay in Filing Change Report Does Not Invalidate Appointment of Public Trust Administrator

In Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar & Ors. (2024 Latest Caselaw 268 SC), the Supreme Court held that delay in filing a Change Report under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 is merely a curable procedural defect and does not invalidate the appointment of a Vahiwatdar (Administrator) or Trustees of a public trust. The Court observed that such delay may invite statutory consequences but cannot automatically nullify a valid succession or appointment. 

The dispute concerned Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, a registered public trust established for the upkeep and maintenance of a temple in Maharashtra. After the death of the previous Vahiwatdar in 1997, Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil assumed the office as Administrator, although he was the third son of the founder because the elder brother was unwilling to take over. However, the Change Report recording his appointment was filed only in 2015, nearly seventeen years later. The Deputy Charity Commissioner accepted the Change Report, and Jagdishchandra subsequently co-opted four Trustees, whose appointments were also approved. Several devotees challenged these approvals before the Charity Commissioner and later before the Bombay High Court. The High Court set aside both Change Reports solely on the ground that there was no separate order condoning the long delay in filing the first Change Report and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Trust challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was whether the delay of over seventeen years in filing a Change Report under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act automatically invalidated the appointment of the Vahiwatdar and the consequential appointment of

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had adopted an excessively technical approach. The Court observed that:

•At the relevant time, Section 22 did not expressly provide for condonation of delay, but the provisions of the Limitation Act were nevertheless applicable. 

•The amendment introduced in 2017 permitting condonation of delay was merely clarificatory and did not create a new substantive right. 

•The Joint Charity Commissioner had already treated the delay as having been condoned, and that order had attained finality. 

•The objectors had not raised the issue of delay before the Charity Commissioner and could not raise it for the first time before the High Court. 

•The Act does not provide that delay in filing a Change Report automatically invalidates the assumption of office by a Trustee or Vahiwatdar. 

•Failure to file a Change Report may attract statutory penalties but does not nullify the underlying appointment. 

•Questions regarding alleged mismanagement of the Trust must be addressed through the statutory remedies provided under the Act and not by challenging otherwise valid Change Reports. The Court also observed that courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach while dealing with procedural delays rather than defeating substantive rights on technical grounds. 

The Supreme Court:

•Allowed the appeals. 

•Set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment. 

•Confirmed the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017. 

•Upheld the appointment of Jagdishchandra as Vahiwatdar and the co-option of the Trustees. 

•Directed the parties to bear their own costs. 

The judgment clarifies that delay in filing a Change Report under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is a procedural irregularity capable of being cured and does not automatically invalidate changes in the administration of a public trust. It also reinforces that courts should prioritise substantive justice over technical procedural objections and that disputes regarding management of public trusts must be addressed through the specific statutory mechanisms provided under the Act.