Bombay High Court
Arun Dattatray Mahale And Others vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, ... on 3 March, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
Writ Petition No.997/2015 with
other connected petitions
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.997 OF 2015
1. Arun Dattatray Mahale,
Age 57 years, Occu. Business
2. Yuvraj Mahadu Chaudhari,
Age 45 years, Occu. Business
3. Sunil Budhaji Chaudhari,
Age 50 years, Occu. Business
All R/o Deopur, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Assistant Charity Commissioner 1,
Dhule Region, Dhule
(Copy to be served through
Government Pleader, High Court
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
2. Yeshwant Pandurang Chaudhari,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Dilip Pandurang Chaudhari,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Ramesh Vitthal Chaudhari,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 all
R/o Chimthane, Taluka Shindkheda,
District Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners
Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for State
Shri V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel with
Shri A.V. Hon, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4
.....
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 01:11:59 :::
Writ Petition No.997/2015 with
other connected petitions
2
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1003 OF 2015
1. Arun Dattatray Mahale,
Age 57 years, Occu. Business
2. Yuvraj Mahadu Chaudhari,
Age 45 years, Occu. Business
3. Sunil Budhaji Chaudhari,
Age 50 years, Occu. Business
All R/o Deopur, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Assistant Charity Commissioner 1,
Dhule Region, Dhule
(Copy to be served through
Government Pleader, High Court
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
2. Ramrao Shankarrao Gagare
Age 62 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Rajendra Gulzarsing Girase
Age 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 R/o
Chimthane, Tq. Shindkheda,
District Dhule
4. Dilip Devraj Jain
Age 57 years, Occu. Agril.,
Ekta Nagar, Nakane Road,
Deopur, Dhule, District Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners
Shri S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for State
Shri S.P. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.4
.....
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 01:11:59 :::
Writ Petition No.997/2015 with
other connected petitions
3
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1005 OF 2015
1. Arun Dattatray Mahale,
Age 57 years, Occu. Business
2. Yuvraj Mahadu Chaudhari,
Age 45 years, Occu. Business
3. Sunil Budhaji Chaudhari,
Age 50 years, Occu. Business
All R/o Deopur, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Assistant Charity Commissioner 1,
Dhule Region, Dhule
(Copy to be served through
Government Pleader, High Court
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
2. Vijay Hemraj Kolapkar
Age 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Yogesh Jaising Girase
Age 28 years, Occu. Agril.,
Respondent Nos.2 and 3
R/o Chimthane, Taluka Shindkheda,
District Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners
Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for State
Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
.....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1006 OF 2015
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 01:11:59 :::
Writ Petition No.997/2015 with
other connected petitions
4
1. Arun Dattatray Mahale,
Age 57 years, Occu. Business
2. Yuvraj Mahadu Chaudhari,
Age 45 years, Occu. Business
3. Sunil Budhaji Chaudhari,
Age 50 years, Occu. Business
All R/o Deopur, Dhule,
Taluka and District Dhule ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Assistant Charity Commissioner 1,
Dhule Region, Dhule
(Copy to be served through
Government Pleader, High Court
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
2. Ramrao Shankarrao Gagare
Age 80 years, Occu. Agril.
3. Yeshwant Pandurang Chaudhari
Age 62 years, Occu. Agril.
4. Dilip Pandurang Chaudhari
Age 60 years, Occu. Agril.
5. Ramesh Vitthal Chaudhari
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 all
R/o Chimthane, Tq. Shindkheda,
District Dhule
6. Indrasing Bakhatsing Girase,
Age 62 years, Occu. Agril.
7. Vijay Humraj Kolapkar
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.
8. Yogesh Jaysing Girase
Age 50 years, Occu. Agril.
9. Nimba Mahadu Borse
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2017 01:11:59 :::
Writ Petition No.997/2015 with
other connected petitions
5
Age 57 years, Occu. Agril.
10. Sahebrao Motiram Borse,
Age 52 years, Occu. Agril.
11. Devidas Soba Nagrale
Age 45 years, Occu. Agril.
12. Ransing Khumansing Girase
Age 47 years, Occu. Agril.
13. Tarachand Daga Patil
Age 50 years, Occu. Agril.
14. Ashok Sattar Mahajan
Age 42 years, Occu. Agril.
15. Ananda Rupa Chaudhari
Age 40 years, Occu. Agril.
16. Tarachand Nhananka Bhoi
Age 58 years, Occu. Agril.
17. Ramesh Sada Marathe,
Age 49 years, Occu. Agril.
All R/o Chimthane, Taluka Shindkheda,
District Dhule ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners
Shri S.R. Yadav, A.G.P. for State
Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 17
.....
CORAM: S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED: 3rd March, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.G.P. for the State and learned counsel for contesting
Writ Petition No.997/2015 with
other connected petitions
respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. In Writ Petition Nos.997/2015, 1003/2015 and
1005/2015, the applications filed vide Exhibits 31, 13 and 14
respectively in Scheme Application Nos.10/2011, 18/2011 and
21/2011 by the petitioners, for being added as the applicants
along with applicants in those scheme applications, were rejected
holding that although the petitioners were having prima facie
interest, the petitioners had already filed their scheme
application No.9/2014 and, therefore, the interest of the
petitioners could be taken care of by hearing that application.
3. In Writ Petition No.1006/2015, the petitioners have
challenged impleadment of the some of the respondents as
opponents in the scheme application of the petitioners bearing
No.9/2014 by allowing of the application of the respondents, filed
at Exhibit 14.
4. After hearing Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Hon, learned Senior counsel and Mr. Brahme,
learned counsel for the respective contesting respondents, it
appears that, basically, although it is not reflected in so many
Writ Petition No.997/2015 with
other connected petitions
words, the reason for rejection of the applications of the
petitioners, was that, they had sought to be impleaded not as
opponents but as applicants in the Scheme Application
Nos.10/2011, 18/2011 and 21/2011. It is also seen that, in
these scheme applications, the applications of the other persons
having interest in the Trust, were allowed primarily for the
reason that their impleadment was sought not as party
applicants, but as party opponents. For the same reason, the
third party interested persons were allowed to be impleaded as
opponents in Scheme Application No.9/2014, which is subject
matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.1006/2015. Such being
the reason, disclosed in the impugned orders, the petitioners, in
my view, could not seek the benefit of ground of parity. At the
same time, the petitioners can secure their interest by choosing
to file fresh applications making appropriate prayers on the lines
similar to the ones made in the other applications, if at all the
petitioners are desirous of getting the benefit of ground of parity.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason for
the present to interfere with the impugned orders. However, I
deem it necessary to give appropriate liberty to the petitioners.
6. The Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
Writ Petition No.997/2015 with
other connected petitions
However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to make
appropriate applications before the learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner. It is made clear that, dismissal of this petition
shall not come in the way of the petitioners in urging the learned
Assistant Charity Commissioner to grant them the benefit of
parity. If any such applications are made, they shall be decided
in accordance with law, within two weeks after giving appropriate
opportunity of hearing to all the sides.
7. Rule is discharged. No costs.
( S. B. SHUKRE )
JUDGE
fmp/
