Remanded

Mr. Rashid Suleman Oomer and Anr. v. the Charity Commissioner, Mah. State and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Sept 2021WP/11624/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order dismissing the petitioners' application under sections 41A and 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and remanded the matter to the Joint Charity Commissioner for a fresh decision within three months, keeping all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 19.06.2017 set aside; matter remanded to Joint Charity Commissioner to decide within three months.

Mr. Rashid Suleman Oomer and Anr. Vs the Charity… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(16)-WP-11624-17.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.11624 OF 2017

¶4

Mr. Rashid Suleman Oomer and Anr. Versus

¶5

Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State and Ors.

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh a/w Ms. Krusha Maheshwari & Ms. Swati Chandan i/by ANB Legal, for the Petitioners.

¶9

Smt. Neha Bhide, “B” Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 - State Mr. Uzair Z. Kazi i/by YMK Legal, for Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 28^th SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners: Smt. Neha Bhide, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Mr. Kazi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶13

On 01.09.2021, we had issued notice with an observation that on the next date an endeavour would be made to dispose of the writ petition.

¶14

Order dated 01.09.2021 sums up the controversy in question and we extract the relevant portion thereof :-

¶15

“7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the impugned order dated 19^th June, 2017 and submits that application of the petitioners under section 41E read with

¶16

BGP. 1 o f 3

¶17

(16)-WP-11624-17.doc .

¶18

section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 was dismissed as not maintainable by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai on the ground that the trust under consideration was transferred to the Wakf Board, Aurangabad vide notification dated 5^th May, 2005. His submission is that this notification dated 5^th May, 2005 is actually a corrigendum to resolution No.3 of the Maharashtra State Board of Wakf dated 9^th March, 2005. Referring to the notification dated 7^th October, 2008 of the Maharashtra State Board of Wakf, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that resolution No.3 dated 9^th March, 2005 was cancelled and deleted by the State Board in its meeting held on 3^rd April, 2008 which was confirmed on 27^th May, 2008. Therefore, the corrigendum dated 5^th May, 2005 automatically stood cancelled. That being the position matter be remanded back for a fresh decision on merit, he submits.”

¶19

Having considered the factual position as encapsulated in our order dated 01.09.2021 as extracted above, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai to decide the application of the petitioners filed under sections 41A and 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 in accordance with law.

¶20

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2017 and remand the matter back to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai.

¶21

Let the decision be taken within the outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

2 o f 3

¶23

BGP.

¶24

(16)-WP-11624-17.doc .

¶25

All contentions including jurisdiction are kept open.

¶26

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL

¶28

Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2021.09.28 15:57:43 +0530

¶29

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J UJJAL BHUYAN, J

¶30

3 o f 3

¶31

BGP.

Mr. Rashid Suleman Oomer and Anr. v. the Charity Commissioner, Mah. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Rashid Suleman Oomer and Anr. v. the Charity Commissioner, Mah. State 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

Xyz Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Anr.

Maharashtra State Amateur Aquatic Association Thro.Secretary Rajendra Y. Palkar Vs Union of India Throu. Minnistry of Youth Affairs and Sport Department of Sports

Haidry Jama Masjid Trust Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

B. M. Gandhi Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Securities Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Indapur Dairy and Milk Products Ltd. through Poa D.H.Galande Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Dept. Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Anr.

Akshar Krishnakumar Biyani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.