Allowed

Mohd. Bahauddin Mohd. Ahmedoddin v. Mehmood Khan Maula Khan Pathan

Bombay HC14 Sept 2015WP/9934/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the petitioner's writ petition setting aside impugned orders rejecting applications under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and Rules. Restored applications to original position for expeditious decision within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 25th June, 2014 and 10th September, 2014 set aside; applications restored to original position for decision within eight weeks.

Mohd. Bahauddin Mohd. Ahmedoddin Vs Mehmood… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

{1}

wp9934-14

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9934 OF 2014

¶6

Mohd. Bahauddin Mohd. Ahmedoddin PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mehmood Khan Maula Khan Pathan RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr. R. R. Mantri h/f Mr. R. R. Sancheti, Advocate for petitioner Mr. K. M. Nagarkar, Advocate for respondent Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent state

¶10

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶11

DATE : 14th SEPTEMBER, 2015

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Leave to amend and add party.

¶14

Issue notice to added respondent.

¶15

Learned AGP waives service for the added respondent.

¶16

Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to sections 38 and

¶17

39 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and particularly rule 25 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951, which has been quoted by this court (Coram : Shri. R. V. Ghuge, J.) under order dated 15^th November, 2014.

¶18

{2}

¶19

wp9934-14

¶20

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits, having regard to the same the situation emerges that the applications, which have been filed by the present petitioner, Exhibit-48 and Exhibit66 have been rejected ostensibly overlooking rule 25 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules.

¶21

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits, it may not be the case and that orders do depict that the consideration is underlying and the record may be otherwise.

¶22

However, parties fairly resile to a situation wherein these applications can be re-considered.

¶23

In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 25^th June, 2014 on Exhibit-48 as well as the one dated 10^th September, 2014 on Exhibit-66 by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded in Inquiry No. 693 of 2011 stand set aside. Both the applications are restored to their original position. Both the applications be considered simultaneously and be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

¶24

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶26

drp/wp9934-14

Mohd. Bahauddin Mohd. Ahmedoddin v. Mehmood Khan Maula Khan Pathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Bahauddin Mohd. Ahmedoddin v. Mehmood Khan Maula Khan Pathan

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

Lalasaheb Rambhau Nade Vs Sunil Pundlik Admile and Others

Surekha Vasant Jadhvar Vs Kisan Pandurang Jadhvar and Others

Ramesh Raghunath Chorsia (Died) Thr. Lrs. Lilabai Ramesh Chorsia and Others Vs Chandrabhagabai Namdev Kande Died through Died and Others

Ganpat Bhau Tekude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravindra Vithalrao Songire Vs M/S Labhshetwar and Sakkarwar Construction through Its Partners Vijay Ramdas Sakkarwar and Anothers

Suryakant Laximan Dhulshette Vs Madhav Tukaram Dhulshette