PIL opposes Mah Charity Commissioner's move to make trusts pay

A PIL filed in the Bombay High Court has opposed the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner's move to collect Rs 30 crore per annum from five lakh charitable trusts in the state towards administration fund to meet expenses, saying there was enough money lying with it in the form of fixed deposits.
The petitioners told the high court on March 5 that an RTI had revealed that enough funds were at the disposal of the Charity Commissioner to meet the administration expenses and hence there were no need to collect money for "Public Trusts Administration Fund".
Citing information received through the RTI, the petitioners contended that the Charity Commissioner's office had fixed deposits to the tune of Rs 431 crore, lying in various banks as on September 30, 2012, petitioner's lawyer Prafulla Shah argued.

He said that total income earned by the office of Charity Commissioner from interest on fixed deposits was Rs 27.98 crore and from other sources the income was Rs 241 crore as on March 31, 2012.
The figures show that enough money was available with the Charity Commissioner's office to manage expenses and hence there was no need to maintain a separate Administration Fund which was sought to be created, the PIL, filed by Devendra Shah, Trustee of Jain Shwetamber Trust and others, contended.
The high court had in 2009 granted a stay on the collection of money for Administration Fund set up by the Charity Commissioner.

Recently, the Charity Commissioner moved the high court seeking to vacate the stay.

The Charity commissioner contended that many trusts were ready to voluntarily contribute towards this Fund and they may be allowed to pay money to this fund during the pendency of the petition.
The charity commissioner claimed that there were a large number of trusts who had dutifully paid the amounts due and payable by them towards the Administration Fund. However, there are also other trusts who follow dubious ways and methods to evade the payment of the Fund.
Unless the high court order was modified, it would amount to giving a bonus or dividend to such errant trusts who failed to make payments, the regulator argued.