Bombay High Court
Madhavappa Paikappa Ekotkhane ... vs Rameshappa Mahadeoappa ... on 8 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
14-WP-4413-15 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4413 OF 2015
1. Madhavappa Paikappa Ekotkhane
Age-60 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
2. Mahadeoappa Punjappa Nilankar
Age-58 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
3. Wamanappa Mahadeoappa Nipane
Age-62 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
4. Sureshappa Kashinathappa Choudhary
Age-65 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
5. Malikarjun Damuappa Baraskar
Age-58 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
6. Shrikrushna Wamanrao Kapse
Age-49 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
7. Gajanan Laxmanappa Pande
Age-61 yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati. ... Petitioners
-vs-
1. Rameshappa Mahadeoappa Ganjiwale
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:41:04 :::
14-WP-4413-15 2/5
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
2. Kisanappa Mahadeoappa Nipane
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati. Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
3. Shivdasappa Laxmanappa Kanbale
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
4. Pundlikappa Domaappa Kelkar
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
5. Madhukarappa Mahadeoappa Baraskar
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
6. Rameshappa Mahadeoappa Khalbu
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
7. Gokuldas Laxmanappa Wale
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
8. Kashinathappa Sadashivappa Baraskar
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati.
9. Haribhau Natthuji Ganjiwale
Age- yrs. Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Chincholi Gawali, Tq. Morshi.
Dist. Amravati. ... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:41:04 :::
14-WP-4413-15 3/5
Shri P. S. Patil, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A. De, Advocate i/by Shri M. A. Deshpande, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : JUNE 08, 2016
Oral Judgment :
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
The order dated 17/04/2015 passed by the learned Principal
District Judge, Amravati on an application for condonation of delay is under
challenge. By the said order, the delay in filing an application under Section
72 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the said Act) was
not condoned.
2. In proceedings under Section 50A of the said Act, the learned
Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated 21/01/2012 settled a scheme
for the proper management and administration of the trust in question. The
petitioners being aggrieved by the settlement of said scheme sought to
challenge the same by filing an application under Section 72 of the said Act.
A separate application for condonation of delay of 210 days in preferring the
application was also filed. By the impugned order, the application for
condonation of delay has been rejected.
14-WP-4413-15 4/5
3. Shri P. S. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners were unable to participate in the scheme proceedings
and hence they were not aware of the same. After the proceedings were
decided and they got knowledge about the same, the petitioners took
necessary steps for challenging the said order. He submitted that as the
dispute relates to settlement of the scheme of a public trust, an adjudication
on merits was necessary.
Shri A. De, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order on the ground that the reasons assigned in the application
for condonation of delay were not sufficient. It was merely stated that on
account of busy schedule of the counsel, the proceedings could not be filed
within limitation.
4. Having heard the respective counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record, it can be seen that the order settling a
scheme of the public trust was under challenge before the District Court. In
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay, reasons have
been assigned as to why the proceedings could not be filed within limitation.
It appears that the counsel concerned could not file the proceedings within
limitation. On that count, the parties could not be made to suffer. The
learned Principal District Judge was not justified in holding that the delay
was unexplained. Thus, accepting the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 3
14-WP-4413-15 5/5
and 4 of the application and as the matter relates to settlement of a scheme
for the management of a public trust, the following order is passed :
i) The order dated 17/04/2015 in Misc. C.A. No.267 of 2012 is set
aside.
ii) The delay in filing the application under Section 72 of the said Act
stands condoned. The proceedings shall be decided on their own
merits in accordance with law.
iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
