Shri Sanket Anil Dongre, ... vs Education Officer, (Secondary), ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1660 Bom

                                                                                   wp2320.16
                                            1




                                                                                
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                        
                          WRIT PETITION     No. 2320 OF 2016




                                                       
    Sanket Anil Dongre,
    aged 26 years, Occupation : Business,
    Secretary, Navyuvak Shikshan Sanstha,
    Nagpur, r/o Kujilalpeth,




                                          
    Babulkheda, Nagpur-27.                                  .... PETITIONER.
                               
                              VERSUS
                              
    1. Education Officer (Secondary)
       Z.P. Bhandara.

    2. Bhaskar Laxman Navfule,
       aged 55 years, Occupation : Service
      


       r/o Vivekanand Colony,
       Thana (Petrol Pump), Post Thana,
   



       District Bhandara.

    3. Andeo @ Anant Vithoba Dongare,
       aged about 63 years,





       Occupation : Cultivator,
       r/o Plot No. 470, New Nandanvan,
       Near Bhosala Mahila Adhyapak Vidyalaya,
       Nagpur.

    4. Sau. Birjulabai Meshram,





       aged 58 years, Occupation : Cultivator,
       r/o Plot No. 255,
       Near Himani Sari Centre, Kukde Layout,
       Nagpur-27.                      ....  RESPONDENTS.


    Shri V.N. Patre Advocate for the Petitioner.
    Shri Amit Balpande, AGP, for respondent no. 1.
    Shri A.Z. Jibhkate Advocate for Respondent no. 2.
                                     .....




      ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016                      ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:03:18 :::
                                                                                    wp2320.16
                                                 2




                                                                                
                                           CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 20.04.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

Change Report filed by him is pending and unless the application

seeking permission of the Court for making him a party/

respondent to the appeal was decided, the appeal could not have

been disposed of, as has been wrongly done by the School

Tribunal in this case. He refers to the judgment of this Court in

Dinkar Shankarrao Patil & ors. vs. Sheshrao Shankarrao

Patil reported in 2008(3) Bom C.R. 676, wherein it is observed

that when two change reports are filed and which are pending for

adjudication, the Assistant Charity Commissioner should not

entertain any application under section 41-A of the Maharashtra

Public Trusts Act.

3. Insofar as decision of this Court rendered in Dinkar

Patil's case, supra, is concerned, it is in respect of the power of

wp2320.16

learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to entertain an

application under Section 41-A of the said Act pending decision

on the Change Reports. The core issue in this case is, however,

different. It is, whether or not the appeal itself could have been

disposed of on the basis of settlement arrived at between the

appellant and the respondents before the National Lok Adalat

when the application filed by the petitioner for joining him as a

party was pending. Therefore, the ratio of this case is not of any

assistance to the petitioner in the instant case.

4. The appeal in the present case has been disposed of

by virtue of an Award passed under Section 19 of the Legal

Services Authority Act, 1987 and it is based upon a joint pursis

(Ex.31) filed by the respondent no. 2, who was the appellant in

Appeal No. STN 43/13, and the respondents 3 and 4, who were

the respondents in the said Appeal. The Award was passed at

the time when the present petitioner was not a party in that

appeal. When the parties to the Appeal had settled the dispute

between them, a person not a party to the appeal like the

petitioner, would have no locus to say that no Award under

Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act could have been

passed. Therefore, the order impugned in this case disposing of

wp2320.16

the appeal by virtue of settlement arrived at before the National

Lok Adalat cannot be seen as illegal or arbitrary. If at all the

petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order, which is based upon

amicable settlement between respondent no.2 on one hand and

the respondents 3 and 4 on the other hand, the petitioner would

have to raise an independent challenge. In such a case, the

petitioner cannot seek to keep the appeal alive to which he was

not at all a party, just because his application for adding him as a

party was pending. He would acquire say in the appeal only

when he is added as party and till that time he cannot prevent

parties from settling the dispute between them. In the

circumstances, I see no illegality or arbitrariness in the order

impugned in this case. There is no substance in the writ petition.

Writ petition is dismissed.

Rule discharged. No cost.

JUDGE

/TA/