Bombay High Court
Shri Ramesh S/O Pandurang Wankhede & 3 ... vs Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh & 28 Ors on 17 May, 2017
Author: S. B. Shukre
Bench: S. B. Shukre
1 WP 5374.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.5374 of 2008
Petitioners:- 1. Shri Ramesh S/o Pandurang Wankhede,
aged about 59 yrs, Occ. Retd., Lecturer,
R/o. Rewatkar Layout, Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
2. Shri Krishna S/o Pandurang Navghare,
aged about 59 yrs, Occ. Retd. Principal,
R/o. Teachers Colony, Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
3. Shri Ramkrishna S/o Sonbaji Maski,
aged about 60 yrs, Occ. Retd. Teacher,
R/o. Rewatkar Colony, Umrer,
Dist. Nagpur.
4. Shri Shammi Gaffar Sheikh,
aged about 36 yrs, Occ. Business,
Ex. Student of the College run by the
District Nagpur.
VERSUS
Respondents:- 1. Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh,
aged about 48 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Deshmukhward, Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
2. Ajit Shankarrao Deshmukh,
aged about 49 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
3. Sharad Chintaman Dhoke,
aged about 62 yrs, Occ. Retired,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
4. Gulabrao Jagobaji Bhujade,
aged about 59 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
5. Dilip Krishna Jagam,
aged about 55 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Budhwari Peth, Umrer,
Dist. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:50:45 :::
2 WP 5374.08
6. Pranay Shrawan Parate,
aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
7. Subhash Haribhau Vinchure,
aged about 47 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
8. Khemraj Kanjibhi Wagad,
aged about 30 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
9. Ranchoddas Vitthaldas Nathani,
aged about 72 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
10. Janardan S/o Ramaji Sadavarte,
aged about Adult, R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
11. Ramesh S/o. Namdeorao Khandade,
aged about adult, R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
12. Indrakumar Dajiba Nagdevate,
aged about adult, R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
13. Sakharam Mahadeorao Sorte,
aged about adult, R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
14. Babanrao B. Taywade,
aged about adult, R/o. R/o. 94/7, Ujwal
Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur.
15. Keshao Bhaskarrao Chandle,
aged about 58 yrs, Occ. Serivce,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
16. Dr. Shrawan S/o. Govindrao Parate,
aged about 68 yrs, Occ. Doctor,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:50:45 :::
3 WP 5374.08
17. Kanjibhai S/o Harilal Vegad,
aged about 62 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
18. S. S. Gadge,
aged about 35 yrs, Occ. Business,
Ex-Student of College run by Trust,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth, Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
19. Shri J.N. Lonare,
aged about 31 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
20. Sou. R. S. Sorte,
aged about 50 yrs, Occ. Ex-President,
Nagar Parishad, umrer, R/o Itwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
21. Sou. Anita Koypare,
aged about 34 yrs, Occ. Lecturer,
R/o. Wagmare Layout, Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
22. Shri H. L. Lonare,
aged about 44 yrs, Occ. Lecturer,
R/o. Waghmare Layout,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
23. C. K. Fedujwar,
aged about 43 yrs, Occ. Lecturer,
R/o. Adyalwale Layout,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
24. Shri. D. B. Taywade,
aged about 38 yrs, Occ. Librarian,
R/o. Rewatkar Layout,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
25. Shri B. S. Shende,
aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Azad Chowk, Umrer,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
26. Shri A. R. Dhakate,
aged about 31 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:50:45 :::
4 WP 5374.08
27. Dr. P. N. Tatode,
aged about 44 yrs, Occ. Lecturer,
R/o. Ashirwad Nagar, Nagpur,
Dist. Nagpur.
28. P. D. Bhagwat,
aged about 44 yrs, Occ. Lecturer,
R/o. Rewatkar Layout,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
29. Ku. B. G. Tambe,
aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Lecturer,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth,
Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.
None for the Petitioners.
Mr.U.A. Gosavi, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr.V..K.Paliwal, for the Respondent No. 15.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : S. B. Shukre, J.
DATE : 17.5.2017. Oral Judgment : 1. None for the Petitioners.
2. Heard learned Counsel Shri U.A. Gosavi for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned Counsel Shri V.K. Paliwal for respondent no. 15.
3. A detailed pursis has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of order passed by this Court on 15 th May, 2015. The pursis together with its accompaniments is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.
::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:50:45 :::
5 WP 5374.08
4. On going through the pursis and also after hearing the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as for Respondent No. 15, I find that this petition, due to subsequent developments, has been rendered infructuous. The subsequent developments are narrated in detail in the pursis and need not be reproduced herein to avoid repetition. The pursis is supported by copies of the relevant orders passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, High Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. In view of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, respondents no. 1 to 5 herein have filed an application for adopting them as Trustees and proceedings, offering themselves for consideration, under Sections 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 are said to be pending vide Application No. 2 of 2014.
5. Thus, it is clear that due to the subsequent developments, the cause of action in this petition no longer survives and the petition itself has been rendered infructuous. Prayer clause (I), in particular, of the memo of petition does not survive.
6. Before parting with the order, I must mention here that neither the petitioners nor anybody on their behalf have appeared before the Court though sufficient opportunity has been given to them. ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:50:45 :::
6 WP 5374.08 This may be perhaps due to the subsequent developments mentioned earlier.
7. In the result, the petition deserves to be disposed of as infructuous. It is disposed of as such. No costs.
Rule discharged accordingly.
JUDGE Gohane/joshi ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2017 00:50:45 :::