Dismissed

Vilas Hukumchand Gujar and Others v. Vijay Gulabrao Patil and Others

Bombay HC29 Jan 2014WP/896/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order accepting a Change Report and rejecting a stay petition under Article 227. The court held that arguments had technical merit for the appeal but stay was impractical as management takes office upon election; writ jurisdiction was not invoked.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed off. The Joint Charity Commissioner is directed to decide the Appeal expeditiously.

Vilas Hukumchand Gujar and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 W.P. 896.2014

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 896 OF 2014

¶5

Vilas Hukumchand Gujar & Ors. V/s Vijay Gulabrao Patil & Ors.

¶6

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 29/01/2014

¶7

Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Senior Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

COURT'S ORDER :

¶9

The petitioners have filed Appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad against the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule accepting the Change Report U/s 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act [ For short, ' M.P.T. Act ' ].

¶10

The Respondents have filed Change Report in respect of the elections of the Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mohali (Pra. Dangri) for the period from 2006 to 2011. The said Change Report is

¶11

2 W.P. 896.2014

¶12

accepted.

¶13

In the Appeal filed, the petitioners had moved stay petition. The said stay petition is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶14

Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the whole course adopted by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner was illegal. The respondents themselves filed an application challenging " No cross " order on the ground that the present petitioners are not remaining present. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, on erroneous ground that no objection has been filed, has allowed the Change Report in the haste. According to the learned counsel, 315 persons have filed objections. Even they have filed application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner stating that they have no faith in him and he should not pass the order. However, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has hastily decided the present proceedings.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the application is given by 315 persons U/s 41-A of the M.P.T. Act. Even the said application is pending since 2007 and is not being decided. Illegal elections have been held and the Change Report proceedings have been decided in a perverse manner. Such an order deserves to be stayed. The Joint Charity Commissioner

¶16

3 W.P. 896.2014

¶17

while rejecting the stay petition, has not considered all these aspects of the matter. The elections have been held on the basis of the amended constitution, which is set aside. As such, the election of the year 2006 is per-se illegal. This aspect has also not been considered by the authorities. When an application was filed by the petitioners that they do not have faith in him, the Assistant Charity Commissioner ought not to have decided the matter. The interference is required at the hands of this Court.

¶18

Mr. R.N.Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents supports the order and submits that the change takes effect not from the date of the Order passed by the authority, but from the date of election itself. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chembur Trombay Education Society & Ors. V/s D.K.Marathe & Ors. reported in 2002 (13) Bom. C.R. - 161 .

¶19

The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the application U/s 41-A of the B.P.T. Act filed by the petitioners and others has been rejected.

¶20

I have gone through the Order.

¶21

All the contentions of the petitioners can be considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner at the time of deciding the Appeal on its own merits.

¶22

4 W.P. 896.2014

¶23

Even assuming that the Change Report proceedings would be pending, then in view of the dictum of this Court in the case of Chembur Trombay Education Society [ supra ], the persons would come into the office the moment the election takes place. As such, even granting stay would not serve any purpose.

¶24

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 6073 of 2005 dated 22/09/2005 held that the moment the elections are held, the persons are deemed to be in the office.

¶25

In view of the above, the grant of stay would not carry any meaning in the present matter. It has also been stated that the fresh elections have been held in the year 2011. There is dispute regarding the same. The authority would consider the said aspect.

¶26

Considering the above, no case for invoking of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

¶27

The Joint Charity Commissioner shall endeavour to decide the said Appeal expeditiously on its own merits.

¶28

5 W.P. 896.2014

¶29

The Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly. No costs.

¶30

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶31

KNP/W.P. 896.2014

Vilas Hukumchand Gujar and Others v. Vijay Gulabrao Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas Hukumchand Gujar and Others v. Vijay Gulabrao Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramchandra Dattatrya Bhalerao. Vs Amulchand Keshavji Shaha.(L.Rs.)Santaben and Rasikla

Santosh Vaijnathrao Mundhe Vs Ramesh Uttamrao Mohalkar and Others

Janardhan Ramsingh Mahalpure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Govindrao Punjaji Gaikwad and Another Vs Sandeep Asaram Wagh

Pradip Shridharrao Patil Vs Shivraj Limbraj Sangve and Others

Sachin Ramrao Rohamare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others