Allowed

Teachers Association for Non-Aided Polytechnics Kolhapur (Tnfnap) and Ors. v. Shri. Milind Shivajirao Jagtap and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2016WP/2867/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Joint Charity Commissioner due to the absence of stated reasons, directing the Commissioner to hear both parties within one month.

What did the court decide?

Challenged ex-parte ad-interim injunction set aside; Joint Charity Commissioner directed to hear matter within one month.

Teachers Association for Non-Aided… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

DSS

¶2

903-wp-2867-16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2867 OF 2016

¶5

Teachers Association for Non-Aided Polytechnics Kolhapur (TAFNAP) and ors.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

Milind Shivajirao Jagtap and ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. S.S. Pakale i/b Mr. S.M. Katkar for the Petitioners. Mr. Rajgopal K. Dravid for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms M.S. Bane, B-Panel counsel for State -Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 29 JULY 2016.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1] Mr. S.S. Pakale, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks deletion of respondent Nos.4 and 5, as their presence is not required for deciding the present petition. Leave is granted. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶13

2] Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶14

3] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 5 November 2015, by which, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune has granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in the following terms:

1/4

DSS

903-wp-2867-16

Order

“1. Opponents and their agents are hereby restrained from interfering in the administration and management of applicant trust till next order.

¶20

2. Opponent shall not use coercive tactics imparting the administration of applicant trust till next order.

¶21

3. Applicant to comply the order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code”.

¶22

4] Although, in this petition, there was no stay granted on further proceedings, it is an admitted fact that the matter before the Joint Charity Commissioner has not proceeded any further and therefore, as of date, the ad-interim ex-parte order operates. Normally, in such a situation, such order could have been permitted to continue with direction to Joint Charity Commissioner to dispose of application for interim relief, after afford of opportunity of both the parties expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶23

5] However, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that there are hardly any reasons set out in the impugned order. Such reasons were necessary to be set out, particularly, since the order was made ex-parte. The reasons were also necessary to be set out as to why the relief of this nature was being granted ex-parte.

¶24

6] The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the said respondents, who are original applicants before the Joint Charity Commissioner had filed a detailed application supported by ample material to justify the grant of relief. That may be so. At this stage, it is not for this Court to go into such material. However, the fact remains that the impugned order does not reflect

2/4

DSS

903-wp-2867-16

that such material has been taken into consideration for the purposes of grant of ex-parte ad-interim relief.

¶29

7] Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside on this ground alone. However, the Joint Charity Commissioner is directed to hear and dispose of the application for interim relief made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of one month from the date of production of this order.

¶30

8] Mr. S.S. Pakale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that the petitioners will without seeking any further time, file their reply within a period of ten days from today. Further. Mr. S.S. Pakale has assured this Court that the petitioners will not seek any unnecessary adjournments or seek to delay the proceedings particularly in the matter of consideration of application for interim relief. These statements are accepted.

¶31

9] It is made clear that in case the petitioners delay the proceedings, it will be open to the Joint Charity Commissioner to consider the application of respondent Nos.1 and 2 for grant of adinterim relief.

¶32

10] Further, it is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter and therefore, all contentions of all parties are kept open for determination by the Joint Charity Commissioner.

3/4

DSS

903-wp-2867-16

11] The parties to appear before the Joint Charity Commissioner on 8 August 2016 at 3.00 p.m., on which date, the petitioners shall file their reply/written statement in the matter without seeking any adjournment. The parties to also produce authenticated copy of this order on the said date.

¶37

12] Rule is accordingly, made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall however, be no order as to costs.

¶38

13] All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.

¶39

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶40

dinesh

¶41

4/4

Teachers Association for Non-Aided Polytechnics Kolhapur (Tnfnap) and Ors. v. Shri. Milind Shivajirao Jagtap and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teachers Association for Non-Aided Polytechnics Kolhapur (Tnfnap) and Ors. v. Shri. Milind Shivajirao Jagtap 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

Vilas Laxman Apte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Shakir Mohd. Ebrahim Vs Ms. Zakia Shakir Ebrahim

Mr. Hardik Rajesh Parikh Vs Mrs. Ruju Hardik Parikh Nee Ruju Anil Rathod

M/S. Meuse Jupiter Business and Luxury Hotel Vs Divisional Commissioner Nashik Division, Nashik and Ors.

Sau. Lankabai Damu Gondake Vs the Dy. Collector and Ors.

Shri Arvind Digambar Bhat Vs Shri Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.