Person Having Interest denied-petitioner not entitled to joinder in Section 36A(3) loan sanction proceedings under trust law

The inclusive phrase person having interest under the trust law does not extend to the petitioner because the amended beneficiary definition restricts beneficiaries to those entitled under trust objects, and the petitioner was removed from the board and membership by an unchallenged resolution; therefore he lacks the qualifying status that would permit joinder. The court reasoned that permitting intervention would convert a focused application for sanction to borrow into a management dispute, frustrate the statutory requirement for expeditious disposal of borrowing applications and prejudice trust administration; accordingly the application to implead was rejected and the loan application must be decided in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner is a "person having interest" under Section 2(10) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and therefore entitled to be impleaded under Section 73A in proceedings under Section 36A(3) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 seeking sanction to borrow funds.

Analysis: Section 36A(3) empowers the Charity Commissioner to sanction borrowings for a trust in the interest and protection of the trust and requires expeditious disposal of sanctioned loan applications. Section 73A permits joinder of any person "having interest"; Section 2(10) defines that phrase inclusively, and clause (e) includes "any trustee or beneficiary." The amended definition of "beneficiary" in Section 2(2A) (Maharashtra Act No.55 of 2017) is restrictive - a beneficiary "means" a person entitled to benefits under the trust objects and excludes others. The petitioner's challenge to the competence of the persons who filed the loan application turns on his asserted status in the trust (member/trustee/beneficiary). The impugned facts show the petitioner was removed from the Board of Control earlier and from membership by a 3rd December, 2016 resolution which has not been assailed; thus the petitioner no longer satisfies the qualifying categories (member, trustee or beneficiary) that would ordinarily confer a right to be joined under Section 73A. Allowing intervention would expand a focused Section 36A(3) borrowing enquiry into an extended management dispute, prejudicing the statutory requirement for expeditious disposal of loan applications and risking conversion of the proceeding into litigation over control of the trust. Prior permission to intervene in different proceedings (e.g., change report) is not determinative because the nature and purpose of proceedings under Section 36A(3) are materially distinct from change report or management disputes.

Conclusion: The petitioner is not a "person having interest" for the purpose of joinder under Section 73A in the Section 36A(3) loan sanction proceedings; intervention is not warranted and the application to implead is rightly rejected. The petition is dismissed, and the Charity Commissioner is directed to decide the loan application in accordance with law.

---