Dismissed

Manohar S/O Sitaramji Mungle v. Anil S/O Natthuji Dekate

Bombay HC12 Sept 2024WP/385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders allowing a respondent to intervene in two other change reports, as he alleged the respondent was not a trust member. The court held the petition is infructuous as the impugned order was decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed holding it to be infructuous as the impugned order was disposed of and remaining orders must be challenged via independent petitions.

Manohar S/O Sitaramji Mungle Vs Anil S/O Natthuji Dekate — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11122

¶2

1 38-wp-385-24(j).odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (WP) No. 385 of 2024 Manohar S/o Sitaramji Mungle Versus

¶5

Anil S/o Natthuji Dekate

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Shri Dr.A.H.Jamal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Gode, Advocate for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J. DATED : 12^th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶9

This petition takes exception to the order dated 2^nd February, 2023 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in Change Report No. 7 of 1983. 2. By the impugned order, the intervention application filed by the respondent herein was allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition has become infructuous as learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has already decided the change report No. 7 of 1983.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two more change report being change report Nos. 165 of 2003 and 89 of 2022 are pending and in the said change reports also the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has allowed the application filed by the respondent for intervention. It is submitted the

¶11

SKNair

¶12

2 38-wp-385-24(j).odt

¶13

respondent is not the member of the trust in question and without deciding the said issue of membership, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner erred in allowing the application for intervention.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed the application for amendment in the present petition and sought permission to challenge the order passed in the other two change reports allowing the application of the respondent for intervention.

¶15

It is not in dispute that change report No. 7 of 1983 has already been disposed of. As the impugned order arises out of said change report No. 7 of 1983 nothing survives in the present petition.

¶16

The order passed in the other change reports cannot be allowed to be challenged in the present petition as they are independent proceedings. It would be open to the petitioner to challenge those orders by filing independent petitions.

¶17

Needless to mention that this Court has not dealt with the merits of the matter and thus all the contentions are kept open.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶19

SKNair

Manohar S/O Sitaramji Mungle v. Anil S/O Natthuji Dekate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar S/O Sitaramji Mungle v. Anil S/O Natthuji Dekate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Trimbak Patil vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Gulab Wadekar and Others Vs Deepak Narayanrao Gajbhiye

Joshaba Labour Co-Operative Society Ltd, Umersara, Thr. President, Sunil Tulsiram Punwatkar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Co-Operative and Marketing, Mumbai and Ors.

Dr. Meena D/O Laxman Kapshikar Vs Vice Chancellor, Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpuru Niversity, Nagpur and 3 Others

Smt. Rita W/O Santosh Mendhe Vs the Collector, Gondia and Others

Suresh S/O Laxman Kolhe and Others Vs Gautam S/O Shripat Ingle and Others