Allowed

Shri Kuniyal P. Wasu v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC27 Aug 2021WP/3216/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Joint Charity Commissioner has a statutory duty to decide a complaint filed against a public trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The writ petition was allowed, directing the Commissioner to decide the complaint within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.1 to decide the complaint dated 9th October 2018 within four weeks from the date of the order.

Shri Kuniyal P. Wasu Vs Joint Charity… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Judgment

¶2

wp3216.21.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3216 OF 2021

¶6

Shri Kuniyal P. Wasu,
aged about 70 years, Occ.: Retired,
R/o. 115, Narmada Colony,
Katol Road, Nagpur.

¶7

…. PETITIONER.

¶8

 // VERSUS //

¶9

1.Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶10

2.The President, Ayyappa Samajam, Poomkavanam Behind Police Line Takli, Ayyappa Nagar, Katol Road, Nagpur-13.

¶11

…. RESPONDENTS.

¶12

______________________________________________________________
Shri G.N.Khanzode, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms N.P.Mehta, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.

¶13

 CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶14

DATED :AUGUST 27, 2021

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶16

Judgment

¶17

wp3216.21.odt

¶18

¶19

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P.
for respondent Nos.1 to 3, who appears by waiving notice for
respondent No.1. There is no need to issue any notice to respondent
No.2 as there is no relief claimed against the respondent No.2.

¶20

2.RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that he along with some
other aggrieved persons filed a complaint against respondent No.2 and
the date of the complaint is 9th October 2018. This complaint, according
to the petitioner, was made to respondent No.1, but the respondent
No.1 has not decided his complaint.

¶22

4.Considering the nature of the functions and the duties
discharged by respondent No.1 under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, we are of the view that he would
be under a duty to render his decision on the complaint, one way or
the other, in accordance with law and if the grievance persists that, if
such decision has not been rendered, it would be appropriate for this
Court to direct the respondent No.1 to do so.

¶23

Judgment 3

¶24

wp3216.21.odt

¶25

5. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondent No.1
is directed to decide the complaint dated 9th October 2018, in
accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of the
order.

¶26

Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶27

RRaut..

Shri Kuniyal P. Wasu v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kuniyal P. Wasu v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur 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

Hiralal Ramaji Shahare and 2 Others Vs Accountant General, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Nagpur and 3 Others

Shri Samarth Shkshan Sanstha, through Secretary, Swapnil Vasantrao Dontulwar and Anothe Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

Gulam Mustafa Gulam Mehmood and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Chandrakant S/O Zadbaji Mahajan Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust (Nit) through Chairman and Another

Vasantrao Naik Samaj Sudharak Mandal, Pusad through Secretary Kausar Khan Akhtar Khan Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others

Sau. Mira W/O Rajkumar Khiyani and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Other