Bombay High Court
Shri Riddhi Siddhi Adarsh Swetamber ... vs Malad Guru Krupa Co-Operative Housing ... on 13 January, 2021
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik
4.wpst.94722.20 & anr.doc
Bhogale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 94722 OF 2020
Shri Riddhi Siddhi Adarsh Swetamber Murti
Pujak Jain Sangh & ors. .. Petitioners
vs.
Malad Guru Krupa Co-operative Housing
Society Limited & ors. ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 94723 OF 2020
Shri Riddhi Siddhi Adarsh Swetamber Murti
Pujak Jain Sangh & ors. .. Petitioners
vs.
Malad Guru Krupa Co-operative Housing
Society Limited & ors. ..Respondents
------------------------
Mr. Viraj Parikh I/b. Ms. Divya Sanghvi for the Petitioners.
Mr. Manan Sharma for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the State in WPST/94722/2020.
Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the State in WPST/94723/2020.
------------------------
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 13, 2021
P.C.:-
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Rane Date:
2021.01.13 17:45:17 +0530
2. By these Petitions fled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner-the Public Charitable Trust assails an order which is at page 19 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (4), Mumbai impleading the Charity 1/4
4.wpst.94722.20 & anr.doc Commissioner as the party on a motion made by the Respondent No.1-Society. By the impugned order even the application made by the Respondent No.1-Society for amending the application for correction in the area is allowed.
3. Leaned counsel appearing for the Petitioners assails this order and vehemently submits that it was not open for the District Deputy Registrar to have impleaded the Charity Commissioner as a party Respondent. He submits that an application in fact has been made before the District Deputy Registrar raising a preliminary objection that without there being prior permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 the proceedings for grant of deemed conveyance cannot be maintained. In the submission of learned counsel the District Deputy Registrar ought to have frst decided the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the proceedings and only then he could have dealt with the present application on which the impugned order is passed.
4. Learned counsel would submit that despite a detailed reply fled by the Petitioners, without recording any reasons whatsoever, the application fled by the Respondent No.1 is 2/4
4.wpst.94722.20 & anr.doc allowed. It is his submission that the impugned order is an unreasoned order.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 invited my attention to the impugned order and argued in support of the impugned order.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order what is done by the District Deputy Registrar is only to allow an application for amendment adding the Charity Commissioner as a party Respondent. If the Charity Commissioner so feels, it is always open for him to raise an objection that he is not a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings.
7. So far as the other objection of the Petitioners that by the impugned order the correction in the area is allowed, what has been done is only to permit amendment in the application. It is always open for the Petitioners to fle a reply to the said amendment on merits and the issue as to what is the correct area will obviously be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is always open for the Petitioners to raise all permissible objections to the amended plea by fling a reply. 3/4
4.wpst.94722.20 & anr.doc
8. Needless to mention that the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioners regarding the maintainability of the proceedings before the District Deputy Registrar without prior permission from the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, the said application will obviously be dealt with by the District Deputy Registrar on its own merits.
9. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
10. This order will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) 4/4