Court Rules Jurisdictional Overreach in Case Concerning CBSE Affiliation Misrepresentation
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has quashed an order by the Charity Commissioner that directed R.B. Bohora Educational & Welfare Trust to issue a public apology for alleged misrepresentation about its school’s CBSE affiliation. The court ruled that the direction did not fall within the permissible scope of Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which is meant to ensure proper administration of trust property and income.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by several parents and students who claimed they were misled about the CBSE affiliation of New Era English School, run by the petitioner trust. The school, initially affiliated with the SSC Board, had sought affiliation with the CBSE Board, which was ultimately denied after inspection by the CBSE Board in 2009. Despite this, allegations of misrepresentation persisted, leading to the Charity Commissioner’s order for a public apology.
Justice Amit Borkar, presiding over the case, emphasized that the Charity Commissioner's powers under Section 41A are confined to the administration of trust property and income. Directions unrelated to these statutory objectives, such as the order for a public apology, exceed the jurisdiction conferred by the Act. The court highlighted that the statutory framework of Sections 35, 36, 36A, 36B, and 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is designed to govern the management, accounting, and protection of trust property and funds, not to address grievances unrelated to financial or property aspects of trusts.
The judgment underscored the necessity of maintaining the integrity of statutory powers to prevent misuse and overreach. The court reiterated that Section 41A is intended for supervisory purposes, aimed at preserving the financial and proprietary interests of public trusts, rather than correcting moral grievances or misrepresentations unconnected to trust assets or income.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the boundaries of statutory authority, emphasizing the need for jurisdictional adherence. The decision has been welcomed by legal experts who view it as reinforcing the principles of statutory interpretation and administrative restraint.
The Bombay High Court's decision provides clarity on the scope of Section 41A, reiterating that trust administration under this provision must have a direct nexus with the management of trust property, funds, or statutory compliance.
Bottom Line:
The Charity Commissioner's powers under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, are confined to ensuring proper administration of trust property, proper accounting of income, and application of income towards trust objectives. Directions unconnected with trust property or income fall outside the permissible scope of Section 41A.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, Sections 35, 36, 36A, 36B, and 41A
R. B. Bohora Educational & Welfare Trust v. Vijay Mundaware, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845343
