Dismissed

Raosaheb Shankarrao Wagh and Ors. v. the State of Mahrshtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2011WP/6236/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the rejection of their application u/s 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act alleging mismanagement. The Court held that the Assistant Charity Commissioner acted on subjective satisfaction and existing appeals were pending. Dismissed the writ petition u/s 226/227 with liberty to move proper application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitioners granted liberty to move a proper application in law.

Raosaheb Shankarrao Wagh and Ors. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 wp 6236.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6236 OF 2011

¶4

Raosaheb Shankarrao Wagh and others .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate h/f Shri K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶8

Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent/State. Smt. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

. The present petitioners had filed an application U/Sec. 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act against the present respondents. Said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed.

¶12

Shri N. B. Khandare, the learned counsel instructed by Shri Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Assistant Charity Commissioner while rejecting the said application has not dealt with the merits of the allegations made

¶13

2 wp 6236.11

¶14

by petitioners. The respondent No. 2 has opened account in the name of the son and the alleged Secretary of the institution which is not permissible. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are engaged in mismanagement of the trust. Even the petitioners are also the trustees they are not allowed to take part in the management and administration of the trust. The learned counsel contends that the Assistant Charity Commissioner merely on the ground that the change report proceedings are pending with the Joint Charity Commissioner has rejected the application.

¶15

Smt. Dube, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 supports the order and submits that the Assistant Charity Commissioner on subject to satisfaction of all the relevant facts has rightly rejected the application.

¶16

The scope of Sec. 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act is limited to the extent of giving directions to the Trustees to properly administrate the trust. If the Assistant Charity Commissioner finds that the trust is not been properly administered or any property of the trust is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, in such circumstances, directions can be given.

¶17

3 wp 6236.11

¶18

The application filed by the applicants/petitioners on the basis of which the impugned order is passed was not application U/Sec. 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Shri Khandare, the learned counsel submits that application U/Sec. 41-D is filed and same is pending. The authority can consider all the aspects in an application U/Sec. 41-D. However, it has been observed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the impugned order that the change report filed by the present respondents has been accepted and the change report filed by the petitioners is rejected against which appeals are pending. The other aspects are considered. The authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction on objective assessment of the facts and has rejected the application. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶19

The petitioners/applicants are at liberty to move such application as is permissible in law, which application the authority would consider on its own merits.

¶20

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶21

bsb/Dec. 11

Raosaheb Shankarrao Wagh and Ors. v. the State of Mahrshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raosaheb Shankarrao Wagh and Ors. v. the State of Mahrshtra 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

Amin Shaikh Yusuf Khatik and Ors. Vs Namdeo Yashwant Thakur and Ors.

Vinayak Trimbak Dabhade Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Nilesh Ranjit Bhoite Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Shahanoorbi Mohd Shah Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sarvodaya Shikshan Prasarak Coop Society Ltd. Umberkhede Dist Jalgaon through Chairman Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Anand Asaram Tokshiya and Anr. Vs the Assistant Registrar, Co-Op Soc and Ors.