Allowed

Ravindra Parashram Bhagat and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Aug 2016WP/3050/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court set aside the impugned order under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act primarily because petitioner's counsel was absent. The court directed parties to appear afresh. However, appointments of persons to collect offerings made pursuant to the impugned order were to continue until the fresh application is decided.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.1.2015 set aside; parties to appear on 22.8.2016; fresh decision to be made; status quo regarding collection of offerings to continue.

Ravindra Parashram Bhagat and Others Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

19 sr. no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3050 OF 2015

¶4

RAVINDRA PARASHRAM BHAGAT AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. N.C. Garud AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Miss S.S. Raut. Advocate for respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashvin Hon

¶6

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 1ST AUGUST , 2016.

¶7

PER COURT:

¶8

1] Mr. Garud, learned counsel submits that the respondent No.3 has filed an application under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act against the present petitioners, restraining them from alienating the offerings and collecting donations. According to learned counsel, petitioners are working as Pujaris of the said Devasthan. According to learned counsel, the application under section 41-A was not maintainable. Said aspect has not been considered. The Advocate for the petitioner could not remain present at the time of arguments. According to learned counsel, opportunity be given to the petitioners, to contest the application under Section 41-A filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. According to learned counsel, pursuant to the impugned order, an advertisement was issued by the respondents for appointment of Pujaris/Sevekaris. It is not permissible as per the scheme.

¶9

19 sr. no..odt

¶10

2] Mr. Hon, for the respondents submits that the present petitioners did not dispute that they are collecting the offerings and donations. On the basis of the same, the impugned order has been passed. Section 41-A can be invoked if any person is dealing with the property of the trust in a detrimental manner. After the order impugned in the present petition is passed, an advertisement was issued and persons have been appointed to collect the offerings.

¶11

3] We have considered the submissions, it appears that opportunity was given to the petitioner to work out the said application. Twice, the matter was kept for arguments but the counsel for respondent i.e. present petitioners did not appear.

¶12

4] The present petitioners are injuncted from alienating the offerings presented by the worshipers as well as from accepting the donations from the donation boxes kept in the idol. Pursuant to the impugned order, advertisement was issued and persons are appointed to collect the offerings.

¶13

5] Considering the fact that the counsel for the petitioners remained absent and failed to work out the matter. For the absence of a lawyer, a litigant should not suffer. On the said principle, we are inclined to award one more opportunity to the petitioner, however, till the said application is decided, the arrangement that has been made pursuant to the advertisement and appointment of persons for collecting the offerings, etc. shall continue. In the result, we pass the following order :-

¶14

19 sr. no..odt

¶15

{3}

¶16

[a] We set aside the order dated 29th January, 2015 passed in Enquiry No. 276 of 2014 only on the ground that the counsel for petitioner remained absent to argue the matter. We have not considered any other ground while setting aside the said order.

¶17

[b] Parties shall appear before the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 22nd August, 2016.

¶18

[c] Petitioners, so also the respondents, through their counsel, will be entitled to put forth their oral submissions/arguments before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar.

¶19

[d] The said application shall, thereafter be decided afresh, on its own merit.

¶20

[e] Till the said application is decided, the present arrangement which is existing, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the present respondents, for collecting the offerings, shall continue.

¶21

[f] The Assistant Charity Commissioner shall pass further orders in tune with the judgment and order that would be passed in Enquiry Application No. 276 of 2014.

¶22

[g] With these directions and observations, Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

[K.K. SONAWANE] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE JUDGE.

¶24

grt/-

Ravindra Parashram Bhagat and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Parashram Bhagat and Others v. 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

Santosh Ratanlal Bora and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pandurang Ramrao Jivrag Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sharad Amritrao Kale Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharat Appasaheb Mapari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Bhagwan Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinita Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Engineer M S E Distribution Co. Ltd. Anr.