Dismissed

Hazratdada Hayat Kalander Edu. Society, Mangrulpir, Washim Thr. Secretary, Abdul Gani Sheikh Chotu v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim and Another

Bombay HC20 Jan 2017CAO/98/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CAO No. 98/2017, this Court considered a review application filed with condonation of 89-day delay. The Court allowed the condonation but rejected the review petition, holding that the apprehension regarding the Assistant Charity Commissioner's decision was ill-founded and no case was made out for review.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; Review application rejected without modification.

Hazratdada Hayat Kalander Edu. Society, Mangrulpir… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application [CAO] No. 98 of 2017 IN Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No. 1146 of 2017 in Writ Petition No. 5326 of 2016 [decided] [Hazratdada Hayat Kalander Education Society, Washim, Vs. Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Washim]

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶4

Mr. J.R. Kidilay, Adv., for the applicant-petitioner.

¶5

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶6

DATE : 20th January, 2017

¶7

The applicant-petitioner has applied for condonation of delay of eighty nine days in filing the application for review and modification of the order dated 20th September, 2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5326 of 2016.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

¶10

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and delay is condoned.

¶11

Misc. Civil Appln. St. No.1146/2017 :

¶12

By way of present application, the applicant is seeking modification/review of the order. The ground raised is that since the original record is destroyed, the direction issued by this Court cannot be complied with within a stipulated period. Shri Kidilay, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that his client apprehends that on account of non-availability of the original record, the decision of the learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner may go against either of the parties.

¶13

In the present matter, a direction is issued to the learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner. If the learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner cannot comply with the direction within a stipulated period, he can very well request for extension of time. As a matter of fact, on earlier occasion, the learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner had prayed for extension of period, which has been granted by this Court.

¶14

In so far as the apprehension regarding learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner taking an erroneous decision is concerned, the same is totally ill-founded. In any case, the parties would always be at liberty to

¶15

¶16

challenge the order passed by the learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner before the appropriate forum.

¶17

No case is made out for invoking the review jurisdiction. Application is rejected.

¶18

Judge

¶19

Judge .

¶20

|hedau|

Hazratdada Hayat Kalander Edu. Society, Mangrulpir, Washim Thr. Secretary, Abdul Gani Sheikh Chotu v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazratdada Hayat Kalander Edu. Society, Mangrulpir, Washim Thr. Secretary, Abdul Gani Sheikh Chotu v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim and Another

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

Diksha D/O Maroti Barsagade Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary Govt. of India New Delhi and Others

Sanjay S/O Namdeo Mankar Vs Anil Vasant Pardhi, Deputy Dirctor of Education, Nagpur and 2 Others

Pradeep Surana S/O Lalchand Surana Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary Urban and Land Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Khushal Sonbaji Manwar Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zp, Wardha and Another

Mahadeo Bapuraoji Kapse Vs the Chief Exe. Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha and Anr.

Sadbhavna Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Thr Its President Subhashchandra G Chakole and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary, Tribunal Development Dept., Mumbai