Quashed

Haji Ismail Vazir Maknojia v. Abdul Rashid Munshi

Bombay HC20 Oct 2023WP/2624/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition challenging orders under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, quashed the impugned orders issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner without hearing the Petitioners. The Court directed the authority to hear all parties afresh before passing a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the orders passed below Exh.1; directed the Assistant Charity Commissioner to hear all concerned parties afresh on the applications before passing a reasoned order.

Haji Ismail Vazir Maknojia Vs Abdul Rashid Munshi — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

16.wp.2624.23.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

O.O.C.J.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2624 OF 2023

¶6

Haji Ismail Vazir Maknojia and Anr...Petitioners
Versus
Abdul Rashid Munshi and Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Yatin R. Shah a/w. Mr. Vipul Makwana and Mr. Keyur Adhvaryu Advocates for Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Nikita Bhavsar i/by N.P. Bhavsar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State.

¶10

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:OCTOBER 20, 2023.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.

¶13

Bhavsar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Upadhye,

¶14

learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State at length.

¶15

2. On 30.06.2023, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶16

“ 1. Heard Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Mr. Upadhye, learned AGP for State and Ms. Bhavsar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶17

2. In this case, Petition takes exception to the order dated
20.04.2023 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner – VII,
Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai (K. K. Ghule) in proceedings
under Section 41 (A) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act,
1950, inter alia, concerning holding of elections as also
supervision of the Trust activities.

¶18

3. At the outset, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for Applicant / Petitioner would submit that the officer who has passed the impugned order has not heard the Petitioners at all in the said proceedings. Infact according to him the proceedings

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

16.wp.2624.23.doc

¶21

were heard for over a period of two years by a completely
different officer. That it was only on the eve of passing of the
order that the said order has been passed by Mr. K. K. Ghule
who has not heard the proceedings at all. I have brought this
fact to the notice of the learned Government Pleader – Mr.
Upadhye and impressed upon him to take appropriate
instructions as to whether Mr. Shah is correct or otherwise and
inform the Court accordingly. In the alternative, the Roznama
of hearing before the Assistant Charity Commissioner be placed
on record on Affidavit to ascertain the above factual position.

¶22

4. Stand over to 07^th July, 2023.”

¶23

3. Today, Mr. Upadhye, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and

¶24

3 – State has tendered certified copy of the Roznama of the hearings
which had taken place before the Assistant Charity Commissioner in
the subject proceedings instituted under Section 41(A) of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short “the said Act”) between
20.09.2019 to 20.04.2023. He would submit that in the present case
admittedly before the impugned order was passed by the Assistant
Charity Commissioner namely Mr. K.K. Ghule, it is evident that the
Petitioners were not heard by the said Authority. In that view of the
matter and the proceedings conducted before the said Competent
Authority, he would submit that appropriate orders be passed by the
Court.

¶25

4. In view of the above, without delineating and expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and after considering the Roznama placed on record, it is clear that Petitioners were not heard by the concerned Competent Authority and in that view of the matter, both

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

16.wp.2624.23.doc

¶28

the orders passed below Exh.1 which are appended at Exhibit – D at
page No.97 and Exhibit – E at page No.102 of the Writ Petition are
quashed and set aside with a specific direction to the in-charge,
Assistant Charity Commissioner-VII, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai
to hear all concerned parties afresh on their Application filed below
Exh.1 and more specifically numbered as Application
No.ACC/VII/48/2019 and Application No.ACC/VII/26/2022 and only
thereafter pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

¶29

5. It is clarified that, this Court has not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the matter nor in respect of the two orders which have been set aside and the fresh order shall be passed on both Applications under Section 41(A) of the said Act strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

6. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶31

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶32

Ajay

¶33

Digitally signed AJAYTRAMBAK by AJAYTRAMBAKUGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2023.10.20 18:38:30 +0530

¶34

3 of 3

Haji Ismail Vazir Maknojia v. Abdul Rashid Munshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Ismail Vazir Maknojia v. Abdul Rashid Munshi

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

Shri. Shantilal Balkishan Jain vs Smt.Shakuntala Yadav Kothmire and Ors.

Pen Municipal Council vs Assistant Provindent Fund Commissioner

Pen Municipal Council vs Assistant Provindent Fund Commissioner

Ratilal Madan Waja vs the Collector Mumbai Suburban

Nandita Ashok Khosla vs Kamli Vishindas Vazirani (Deceased)

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs Gharada Chemicals Ltd.