Bombay High Court
Mrs. Kusum Rajendra Mishra, President, ... vs Mr. Mahendra Shrinath Mishra And Anothr on 28 July, 2015
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3740.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3740/2015
1. Mrs. Kusum Rajendra Mishra,
President, Shrinath Education Society,
Nagpur.
aged about major, Occu. Service,
R/o Rani Durgawati Nagar,
Nagpur - 17.
2.
Shri Rajendra Shrinath Mishra,
Secretary, Shrinath Education Society,
Nagpur.
aged about Major, Occu. Business,
R/o Shrinath & Co., First Floor,
Rani Durgawati Nagar, Nagpur.
3. Mr. Rajnish Yadavrao Pantawane,
aged about Major, Occu. Not known,
R/o Balabhau Peth, Nagpur.
4. Mr. Ashutosh Babubai Khatri,
aged about Major, Occu. Not known,
R/o Railway Colony, Dipti Signal,
Nagpur.
5. Mr. Prakash Baksamal Aswani,
aged about Major, Occu. Not known,
R/o Beside mahatma Gandhi School,
Jaripatka, Nagpur. ..Petitioners.
..Versus..
1. Mr. Mahendra Shrinath Mishra,
aged about 39 Yrs., Occu. Social Worker,
R/o 429/S, Rani Durgawati Nagar,
Binaki Layout, Nagpur - 17.
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:56:03 :::
2 wp3740.15
2. Mrs. Manju Mahendra Mishra,
aged about Major, Occu. Head Mistress,
R/o 429/S, Rani Durgawati Nagar,
Binaki Layout, Nagpur - 17. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- -
Shri Mahesh Dhandekar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri V.V. Bower, Advocate for respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 28.7.2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri Mahesh Dhandekar, the learned advocate for the petitioners and Shri V.V. Bower, the learned advocate for the respondents.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner condoning the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents were aware about the orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Enquiry No.1200/2011 on 6th August, 2012, in 2014 itself. In support of this submission, the learned advocate has pointed out the photocopy of the certified copy of Schedule I of ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:56:03 ::: 3 wp3740.15 the Public Trusts Register which shows that an application for obtaining the certified copy was made on 11th March, 2014 and the certified copy was delivered on 11 th March, 2014. Shri Dhandekar, the learned advocate has submitted that the respondent no.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that his advocate had given him the copies of the documents of the proceedings under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. The submission is that the documents referred in the cross-examination of the respondent no.1 includes the certified copy of Schedule I of the Public Trusts Register.
It is further submitted that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has committed an error, while allowing the application praying for condonation of delay, overlooking the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents are not the members of the public Trust.
5. Shri Bower, the learned advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
6. I have gone through the impugned order and the other documents placed on the record of the writ petition. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has considered the evidence and the cross-examination of the respondent no.1 in paragraph no.11 of the impugned order and after considering all the material on the record has recorded the finding of fact that the reasons given by the respondents explaining the delay are ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:56:03 ::: 4 wp3740.15 acceptable and it can be said that the respondents were prevented by "sufficient cause"
from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioners relying on the photocopy of the certified copy of Schedule I of the Public Trusts Register is not supported by pleadings in the reply filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner to oppose the application praying for condonation of delay. I do not find any patent illegality in the impugned order which necessitates the interference by this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Tambaskar.::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:56:03 :::