Charity Commissioner lacks jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act to direct a public trust to change its name.

The Petitioner is a public charitable trust registered in 1982 under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act) and the Societies Registration Act, 1860

In 2018, Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint with the Charity Commissioner alleging that the Petitioner’s use of the word “National” in its name violated the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (Emblems Act), as it falsely suggested government patronage and misled farmers regarding the official nature of egg prices declared by the trust

An inquiry was initially conducted under Section 37 of the MPT Act, which later led to suo motu revision proceedings under Section 70A

On September 14, 2023, the Joint Charity Commissioner directed the Petitioner to delete the word “National” from its name

The Petitioner challenged this order, arguing a lack of jurisdiction and expiration of the limitation period for revision

Whether the authorities under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, possess the jurisdiction to direct a registered trust to change or delete part of its name

Whether the inquiry into the trust's name was properly maintainable under Section 37 or Section 70A of the MPT Act

Whether the suo motu revisionary power was exercised within a reasonable timeframe, considering the trust was registered in 1982

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, specifically Sections 19 (scope of inquiry for registration), 37 (power of inspection), and 70A (revisionary powers)

It relied on the Division Bench precedent in Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti v. Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra, which established that MPT authorities lack the power to direct a change of name once a registration certificate is issued

The court also referenced the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (Section 3 and Item 7 of the Schedule), noting that enforcement of this Act lies with its own specific authorities, not the Charity Commissioner

Finally, it applied the principle from Virbala K. Kewalram v. Ramchand Lalchand that revisionary powers must be exercised within a reasonable period, typically three years

The Court observed that Section 19 of the MPT Act limits the scope of registration inquiries to specific factual determinations (e.g., trust existence, objects, trustees) and does not grant authorities the power to evaluate the "suitability" of a name or compel its alteration

It held that the Joint Charity Commissioner erroneously assumed jurisdiction, as the MPT Act contains no provision equivalent to Section 3A of the Societies Registration Act which prohibits "undesirable" names

Regarding the Emblems Act, the Court found that while Item 7 of the Schedule restricts names suggesting government patronage, the Respondent failed to produce evidence that the Petitioner’s activities actually caused confusion or misled the public

Furthermore, the Court criticized the use of Section 37 (intended for financial supervision/misadministration) as a vehicle for name disputes

Lastly, the Court ruled that initiating revision in 2018 for a 1982 registration—a 36-year delay—was an impermissible exercise of discretionary revisionary power

It further concluded that the revisionary power was exercised beyond a reasonable time

Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated September 14, 2023, and made the Rule absolute in favor of the Petitioner