Sunil Tarachand Dhole vs Ganesh Tarachand Dhole And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 7264 Bom

                                          1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.597 OF 2017

Sunil s/o Tarachand Dhole,
Age-50 years, Occu-Business,
R/o Bhilai Pada,
Tq. and Dist.Nandurbar                                    --      PETITIONER 

VERSUS 

1.        Ganesh s/o Tarachand Dhole,
          Age-Major, Occu-President,

2.        Surekha Vanji Wadile,
          Age-Major, Occu-Household,
          R/o Bhilai Pada, Nandurbar, 
          Tq. and Dist.Nandurbar,

3.        Madhukar s/o Zipru Thakare,
          Age-Major, Occu-Member,

4.        Dhakaly Baru Walvi,
          Age-Major, Occu-Member,

5.        Jayram s/o Shankar More,
          Age-Major, Occu-Member

          Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5

all R/o Bhilai Pada, Tq. and Dist. Nandurbar -- RESPONDENTS

Mr.Sachin S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit S.Savale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

DATE : 18/09/2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

khs/SEPT. 2017/597-d

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner claims to be a reporting trustee and has

submitted a change report which is subject matter in Enquiry

No.192/2015. The petitioner is aggrieved by a cryptic order dated

10/05/2016 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner directing

the petitioner to produce those documents which may be available,

after considering the application dated 27/10/2015 at Exh.8 filed by

the respondents.

3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for

the respective sides and have gone through the petition paper book.

4. By Exhibit 8, the respondents have demanded the production

of 7 documents. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner

dated 01/12/2015 contending that the respondents who are applying

for production of documents, were themselves the elected office

bearers and many documents were maintained by them and are in

their custody. By the impugned order, which is palpably cryptic and

without reasons, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has directed

the petitioner to produce those documents which are available. I

khs/SEPT. 2017/597-d

cannot accept the said order as being sustainable.

5. It is trite law that the following factors have to be considered

while deciding an application/notice for production of documents :-

[a] Whether the documents have been properly described so as to be identified ?

[b] Whether the documents are in the exclusive custody of that litigating party from whom the production is demanded ?

[c] Whether the documents are relevant and germane to the cause of action ?

6. After the Court is convinced about the above stated factors, it

could direct the production of the relevant documents and failure to

produce them would then create a situation wherein the concerned

Court may draw an adverse inference.

7. Since none of the above factors have been thought of and as

the impugned order is totally silent as to why the documents are

being directed to be produced, the said order is rendered perverse

and erroneous.

8. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated

10/05/2016 is quashed and set aside. Application Exh.8 is remitted

khs/SEPT. 2017/597-d

to the concerned authority for a fresh decision. The litigating sides

are at liberty to canvas their submissions and after the conclusion of

the same, the concerned authority shall consider the above stated

factors and pass a reasoned order.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

khs/SEPT. 2017/597-d