Disputes concerning public trust activities require factual adjudication before the Charity Commissioner, not writ proceedings.

The appeals challenged the common judgment dated 12 June 2026 by which the learned Single Judge upheld the Joint Charity Commissioner’s order dated 20 July 2021, passed under Section 41A of the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the respondent Trust’s resolution dated 10 October 2021 implementing that order.

The original petitioners claimed to be trustees and beneficiaries of the Trust. They alleged that the Trust had improperly awarded a project to respondent No. 1, entered into an unregistered agreement, and paid a substantial amount from Trust funds without a valid resolution.

One petitioner also claimed to have designed an alternative project that had not been approved by the Trust, while objecting to the proposed electronic digital Museum project.

During the appeal, appellant No. 1 died on 10 August 2026; the Court permitted deletion of his name from the array of parties.

Whether the Letters Patent Appeals should be entertained against the learned Single Judge’s judgment upholding the Joint Charity Commissioner’s order and the Trust’s resolution concerning implementation of the project.

Whether the allegations regarding the Trust’s functioning, expenditure of Trust funds, project allocation, and the legality of the Trust’s activities required adjudication by the High Court or a factual inquiry before the Charity Commissioner under the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Whether the dismissal of the writ petitions would prevent the appellants from pursuing appropriate proceedings before the Charity Commissioner.

The Court applied Section 41A of the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950, under which the Charity Commissioner may issue directions for the proper administration and functioning of a public trust.

It further applied the principle that disputes concerning the functioning, management, activities, expenditure, and projects of a public trust—particularly where they involve contested factual allegations—should ordinarily be examined through an appropriate factual inquiry before the Charity Commissioner under the Act, rather than being determined in writ or appellate proceedings on the existing record.

The Court noted that the appellants’ challenge was founded principally on allegations that the Trust’s activities, project allocation, agreement, and expenditure were contrary to the Trust’s objects and interests.

These allegations involved disputed questions of fact concerning the Trust’s administration and the validity of its decisions. Since such matters required factual investigation, the Court held that the appropriate remedy was to approach the Charity Commissioner under the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Consequently, the Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the learned Single Judge’s decision upholding the Joint Charity Commissioner’s order and the Trust’s resolution.

It clarified that, if the appellants approached the Joint Charity Commissioner regarding the Trust’s functioning, activities, or the project assigned to respondent No. 1, the dismissal of the writ petitions would not operate as a bar.

All rights and contentions were left open for determination in appropriate proceedings. There was no order as to costs, and the connected civil applications for stay were disposed of as having become infructuous.