Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

High Court’s Hypertechnical Approach in Demanding Separate Order for Delay Condonation was Unnecessary:  Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has reversed the High Court’s earlier ruling which invalidated the acceptance of Change Reports concerning the trusteeship and administration of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust. The apex court emphasized that the “High Court’s hypertechnical approach in demanding separate order for delay condonation was unnecessary,” asserting that the delays in filing were justifiably condoned under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.

The controversy stemmed from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay’s decision which questioned the procedural legitimacy of accepting Change Reports filed years after the prescribed deadlines. These reports pertained to the trusteeship succession in Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan following the demise of previous trustees. The High Court had remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Solapur, highlighting an absence of a formal delay condonation.

Authority to Condone Delay: The Supreme Court noted that even though the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act was amended in 2017 to explicitly include provisions for condoning delays, the authority to accept late filings with justifiable reasons existed even prior to the amendment. The apex court criticized the High Court’s focus on the lack of a separate formal order for delay condonation, stating that such an oversight did not merit the invalidation of the Change Reports.

Implications of Delay in Filing Change Reports: The court observed that delays in filing Change Reports do not automatically invalidate the changes in trusteeship. The justices pointed out that the legislative intent was not to disrupt the ongoing management of public trusts due to procedural delays, especially when such delays are condoned by competent authorities.

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions: The Supreme Court highlighted the need for a pragmatic approach in judicial review, which avoids undue interference with administrative discretion unless there is a clear evidence of substantive injustice. The apex court remarked, “Courts are not supposed to legalize injustice but are obliged to remove injustice,” endorsing a flexible, justice-oriented approach towards procedural lapses in administrative functions of public trusts.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, thereby confirming the validity of Change Reports Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017 concerning the administration of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan. It set aside the High Court’s judgment, with each party bearing their own costs, and closed any pending applications.

Date of Decision: April 25, 2024

Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and Others

Similar News