The Bombay High Court has ruled that a public trust must obtain prior written consent from the Charity Commissioner before instituting proceedings under Sections 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, for reliefs concerning trust property against a current or former trustee. The Court found that the defendant was described throughout the pleadings as a trustee or erstwhile trustee, and therefore the statutory precondition of consent was mandatory.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav delivered the ruling while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC filed by the defendant in a suit (No. 23 of 2025) instituted by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. The Trust alleged wrongful occupation of a flat and office space located on the 3rd floor of Lilavati Hospital premises from 2007 to 2015 and sought over ₹17 crore as compensation for unauthorized use.

According to the plaint, the defendant served as a permanent trustee of the Trust from 2001 until December 2023 and continued using the premises while holding office. The Trust argued that the defendant’s conduct amounted to trespass, bringing the claim outside the scope of Section 50, thereby negating the requirement of consent.

Rejecting this stance, the Court held that the Trust’s own statements and document trail reflected repeated acknowledgments that the defendant was functioning as a trustee, permanent trustee, or former trustee during the period of alleged wrongful occupation. Given these assertions, the case squarely fell within the ambit of Section 50. The Court observed:

“When the plaintiffs themselves plead that the defendant was a trustee/permanent trustee/erstwhile trustee, the suit is necessarily governed by Section 50 of the MPT Act and cannot proceed without fulfilling the conditions prescribed therein.”

The Bench further emphasized that Section 51 mandates a prior application to the Charity Commissioner for initiating such suits, who must decide the request for consent after an appropriate inquiry within six months of its filing.

Finding that the Trust had not sought the requisite consent, the Court concluded that the suit was statutorily barred. Consequently, the application filed by the defendant was allowed, leading to rejection of the plaint as non-maintainable under Section 50 read with Section 51 of the MPT Act. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Case Title: Niket Mehta v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust & Ors.
[Interim Application No. 3243 of 2025 with Interim Application No. 4005 of 2025 in Suit No. 23 of 2025]