Dismissed

Uttamrao Wamanrao Sanap and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Apr 2013WP/2763/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of applications for party status added to proceedings under Section 73A of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The single bench held that prima facie observations by the Authority regarding the petitioners' alleged lack of active participation prevented entertainments of the writ.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition was dismissed without entertaining the claim for party status.

Uttamrao Wamanrao Sanap and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 2763 OF 2013

¶3

UTTAMRAO WAMANRAO SANAP AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶4

Advocate for Petitioners :Mr. Nagargoje Ankush N. AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. V.B. Ghatge Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. D. J. Chaudhari

¶5

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Dated: April 18, 2013

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

The applications filed by the present petitioners bearing Exhibit – 31, 60 and 67 under Section 73A of the Bombay Public Trust Act are rejected. Aggrieved thereby present Petition.

¶8

Shri Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are valid members of the trust. In view of Section 73A of the Bombay Public Trust Act they have every right to be added as party in the enquiry. Observations made by the Court while rejecting the applications are per-se illegal. No such meeting as is contended, is held on 05.12.1993. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are life members and petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are the ordinary members of the trust. At no material point of time, they have been removed as members of the trust and in view of the fact that they are the valid members of the said trust they ought to have been given opportunity to contest the said Change Report which is based on erroneous and nonexistent facts. To substantiate this contention, Shri Nagargoje, learned counsel has relied on the various applications and affidavits filed by the parties in various

¶9

sga

¶10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶11

proceedings. According to the learned counsel the authority while rejecting their application has denied the claim of the petitioners as members which is detrimental and prejudicial to their interest.

¶12

Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are aware of the meeting dated 05.12.1993 and they had filed the various proceedings right since 1998. For the said purpose, the learned counsel has relied upon the proceedings which are filed along with the affidavit in reply.

¶13

It is not disputed by the parties that today the evidence of the person presenting the change report has concluded. Applications have been given by the petitioners on 20^th March, 2012 and 20^th November, 2012.

¶14

The Court has observed that the petitioners have not pointed out that for this 19 years, they have actively participated in the affairs of the trust.

¶15

In the present proceedings any observations made would not conclude the finding about the status of the present petitioners as members or not. It would be prima facie observations made by the Authority while dealing with the applications. The observations made by the authority while passing the impugned order will not be construed as the finding regarding the membership of the present petitioners. It will be open for the parties to contend about their membership in appropriate proceedings.

¶16

sga

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶18

In view of the fact that prima facie the authority has observed that from the record it cannot be found that the petitioners have taken part in the affairs of the trust of all these years, I am not inclined to entertain the Petition.

¶19

In the light of the above, Petition is dismissed. However, no orders as to costs.

¶20

( S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. )

¶21

sga

Uttamrao Wamanrao Sanap and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttamrao Wamanrao Sanap and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shantaram Bhikan Patil Vs Sau Nababai Pandurang Ghule and Anr.

Dilip Motilal Nahar Vs Popatlal Motilal Nahar and Others

Kunal Ashokrao Aher Vs Govardhan Mohanlal Karwa and Others

Mahboob Khan Bismillah Khan and Another Vs Sk. Imam Sk. Ali and Another

Sangram Bhanudas Athare and Others Vs Jijabai Dattatraya Mahanor and Others

Savita Somnath Patil Vs Zingaraji Bajaba Misal