Shri Kuniyal P. Wasu vs Joint Charity Commissioner, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12025 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                            wp3216.21.odt




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



                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3216 OF 2021



 Shri Kuniyal P. Wasu,
 aged about 70 years, Occ.: Retired,
 R/o. 115, Narmada Colony,
 Katol Road, Nagpur.
                                                               .... PETITIONER.


                                     // VERSUS //

 1. Joint Charity Commissioner,
    Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

 2. The President,
    Ayyappa Samajam, Poomkavanam
    Behind Police Line Takli, Ayyappa
    Nagar, Katol Road, Nagpur-13.

                                                            .... RESPONDENTS.

  ______________________________________________________________
 Shri G.N.Khanzode, Advocate for Petitioner.
 Ms N.P.Mehta, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
 ______________________________________________________________


                           CORAM :    SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                      ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

                           DATED :    AUGUST 27, 2021


 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)




  Judgment                              2                             wp3216.21.odt

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P.

for respondent Nos.1 to 3, who appears by waiving notice for

respondent No.1. There is no need to issue any notice to respondent

No.2 as there is no relief claimed against the respondent No.2.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he along with some

other aggrieved persons filed a complaint against respondent No.2 and

the date of the complaint is 9th October 2018. This complaint, according

to the petitioner, was made to respondent No.1, but the respondent

No.1 has not decided his complaint.

4. Considering the nature of the functions and the duties

discharged by respondent No.1 under the provisions of the

Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, we are of the view that he would

be under a duty to render his decision on the complaint, one way or

the other, in accordance with law and if the grievance persists that, if

such decision has not been rendered, it would be appropriate for this

Court to direct the respondent No.1 to do so.

Judgment 3 wp3216.21.odt

5. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondent No.1

is directed to decide the complaint dated 9 th October 2018, in

accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of the

order.

Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.

                   ( ANIL S. KILOR, J )          ( SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)


 RRaut..