Disposed

Yasmin Fahim Sayyad v. the Jt. Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2024WP/8780/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Beneficiary challenged the Joint Charity Commissioner's order allowing 21-year delay condonation without hearing her or deciding her pending intervention application. The High Court quashed the order and remitted the delay-condonation application and intervention application for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; MA No. 87 of 2021 restored to Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune for fresh hearing along with petitioner's intervention application.

Yasmin Fahim Sayyad Vs the Jt. Charity Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

 25-WP-8780-2023.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8780 OF 2023

¶5

Yasmin Fahim Sayyad … Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Joint Charity Commissioner … Respondents

¶8

Pune Region, Pune and Others

¶9

Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w. Ms. Shubra Paranjape, Mr. Manish Kelkar, Mr. Nimesh Gawali for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Shantanu Shetty i/b. Mr. Sangram Chinappan for Respondent No. 2.

¶11

Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP for the State.

¶12

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 15^th JANUARY 2024

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard. This petition takes exception to the order dated

¶15

19^th December 2022 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune

¶16

Region, Pune in Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 2021. The said

¶17

application was filed for condonation of delay of 21 years in challenging the order dated 4^th March 2000. By order dated 4^th March

¶18

2000, the Change Report for adding names of trustees was accepted.

¶19

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2024.01.23 09:56:14 +0530

¶20

1/4

¶21

 25-WP-8780-2023.docx

¶22

The petitioner claims to be a beneficiary of respondent no. 2- Trust. The petitioner had filed an intervention application in Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 2021 opposing the said application and also raising grounds concerning the rights of the petitioner. By the impugned order the application for condonation of delay of 21 years is allowed without hearing the petitioner and without deciding the petitioners’ intervention application.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 does not dispute that the petitioner was not heard at the time of passing the impugned order. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners’ intervention application is still pending.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 on instructions states that respondent no. 2 has no objection if the matter is remitted back for hearing on delay condonation application afresh along with the petitioners’ application for intervention.

¶25

Learned AGP appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 also does not dispute that the petitioner was not heard.

¶26

2/4

¶27

 25-WP-8780-2023.docx

¶28

Perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that any notice

¶29

was issued to the petitioner, though an intervention application was filed. On the intervention application, there is an order passed directing the other side to say. In view of the application already filed, the petitioner was entitled to be heard being an interested party.

¶30

Hence, considering the aforesaid limited controversy in the matter the petition is allowed by passing the following order :

¶31

(i) The impugned order dated 19^th December 2022 passed by

¶32

the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune in Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 2021 is quashed and set aside.

¶33

(ii) Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 2021 is restored to the file of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune for hearing afresh.

¶34

(iii) The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune shall hear and decide the Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 2021 afresh along with the petitioner's application for intervention at Exhibit 4 annexed as Exhibit C to the present petition.

¶35

3/4

¶36

25-WP-8780-2023.docx

¶37

(iv) It is clarified that I have not examined the merits of the

¶38

Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 2021 as well as the intervention application.

¶39

(v) All contentions of all parties are kept open.

¶40

(vi) Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶41

(vii) Petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 are at liberty to file

¶42

their affidavits in reply to the respective applications.

¶43

(viii) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶44

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶45

4/4

Yasmin Fahim Sayyad v. the Jt. Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasmin Fahim Sayyad v. the Jt. Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Hanmantrao Banduji Pawar and Ors. Vs Ajinkya Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha , Sangli and Ors.

M/S. Sai Build Enterprise and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Bapu Aher Vs Ramesh Gangadhar Wagh

Mallappa Satappa Tali vs Madedev Satappa Tali

Pushpa Tukaram Salekar vs Vaishali Ramdas Salekar

Sachin Vasant Pawar vs Vasant Krishna Pawar Deceased) During Pendency of the Suit