Dismissed

Sopan Janardhan Pawar and Anr. v. Babruwan Bhanudas Awatade and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2007WP/2532/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order restraining petitioners from making policy decisions, including appointment of staff, by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The court found the contention that the Commissioner lacked power under Section 41E unsubstantial and dismissed the petition, directing the Commissioner to dispose of pending change reports within six months.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur is directed to dispose of the Change Report No. 512 of 1997 and other Change Reports within six months.

Sopan Janardhan Pawar and Anr. Vs Babruwan Bhanudas… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2532 OF2007

¶3

 Mr.Sopan Janardhan Pawar & Anr. ..Petitioners.
 Vs.

¶4

 Shri Babruwan Bhanudas Awatade & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶5

 Mr.Nitin Jamdar, adv. for the Petitioners.
 Mr.Shrishail Sakhare, adv. for the Respondent No.1.
 Mr.Sachin Gite with M.S.Karnik, advs. for the
 Respondent No.2.

¶6

 Mr.Suresh S. Shah, adv. for the Respondent No.4.

¶7

CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J.
DATE : AUGUST 10, 2007.

¶8

 P.C.:

¶9

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.

¶10

 2. On application filed by the respondent nos.1 and

¶11

 2, the Joint Charity Commissioner by an order dated
 18-7-2003 restrained the present petitioner and 2

¶12

 others, who claim to be in the management of the trust
 from taking any policy decision including appointment
 of teachers and other staff members till final disposal
 of the change reports pending before the Assistant
 Charity Commissioner, Solapur. The appeal was
 preferred by the appellants before the District Court
 and that appeal came to be dismissed by order dated
 3-2-2007. Against that order, the petitioners have
 filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel
 for the petitioner mainly contends that the learned

¶13

:2:

¶14

 Joint Charity Commissioner did not have any power to
 pass such order under Section 41E of the Bombay Public
 Trust Act. The respondents on the other hand also
 pointed out that a specific application was made by the
 petitioners before the Assistant Charity Commissioner
 seeking permission to make appointment of teachers and
 other staff and that application was rejected on
 9-12-2003 and against that order, no appeal or revision
 was filed. After going through the provisions of
 Section 41E of the Bombay Public Trust Act, I find no
 substance in the contention of the petitioners. It
 appears that change report was filed in the year 1997.
 The present appellants were elected and according to
 the respondents, the appellants had resigned. It
 appears that after that some elections have taken place
 and change reports were submitted and they are not yet
 decided. As there is serious dispute as to who is in
 the management, I think it will not be desirable to
 make any order or grant any relief in the present
 petition. It will be only in the interest of justice
 and the management itself that the Assistant Charity
 Commissioner should be directed to dispose the change
 reports within the stipulated period.

¶15

 3. For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands
 dismissed summarily. The Assistant Charity
 Commissioner, Solapur is hereby directed to dispose off

¶16

:3:

¶17

 Change Report No. 512 of 1997 as well as other Change
 Reports, which might have been filed thereafter as
 expeditiously as possible and in any case within six
 months. In case, the matters are not disposed off
 within six months, he shall submit report to this Court
 with the reasons.

¶18

[J.H.BHATIA, J.]

Sopan Janardhan Pawar and Anr. v. Babruwan Bhanudas Awatade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sopan Janardhan Pawar and Anr. v. Babruwan Bhanudas Awatade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Bank of India Vs Messrs. Ashoka Constructions

M/S. Chhotalal Keshavji Shah Vs J.R. Nazir and Ors.

M/S. Technomax Engineering Products Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolhapur

Kiran Anant Karnik Vs Sachin Sudhir Karkhanis and Ors.

Sopan Janardhan Pawar and Anr. Vs Babruwan Bhanudas Awatade and Ors.

Shivaji Narayan Dhatrak Vs Ayub Noor Mohammad Sayyed and Ors.