Waghur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ... vs Deputy Commissioner Divisional ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 24 Bom

                                          1
                                                                    10186.16WP

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         21 WRIT PETITION NO.10186 OF 2016


                      WAGHUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL
                                    VERSUS
                             DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                       DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
                               NASHIK AND OTHERS

                                           ...
                     Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.L.V.Sangeet
                      AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.P.Tiwari
                     Advocate for Respondent no.4 : Mr.G.S.Rane
                                           ...

                               CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
                                       S.G.DIGE, JJ.

                               DATE : 03.01.2022

          P.C. :



          1]               We have heard learned Advocate for the
          petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that
          dispute with regard to the change report after 2018 does
          not subsist. The change report submitted by the respondents
          showing Dilipsingh Pratapsingh Patil as Chairman was
          accepted by the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner
          and the change report of the year 2018 is pending
          adjudication. The roster has not been verified by the B.C.
          Cell only on the ground that dispute exists between the




::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2022                    ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 12:19:56 :::
                                               2
                                                                      10186.16WP

          persons in the management. Roster was for a period of
          2002 to 2013.


          2]               Mr.Rane, learned Advocate for respondent no.4
          submits that the petitioner wants to get roster verified
          showing Mr. Rajendra Pratapsingh Patil being appointed
          from open category. In fact, respondent no.4 is appointed
          from Open Category [general category].


          3]               B.C. Cell has to verify the roster in accordance
          with record and would not be concerned with the dispute
          amongst the members of the management. While verifying
          roster, B.C. Cell can consider the appointment orders and
          all other aspects of the matter. The B.C. Cell will have to
          consider the orders passed by this Court from time to time
          and as may be pointed out to it.


          4]               In the light of above, we pass the following
          order :
                                          ORDER

i] The B.C. Cell shall verify the roster submitted by the institution. In doing so, the impugned communication dated 31.10.2015 would not be an impediment.

10186.16WP

ii] The roster shall be verified on its own merits after considering all record and the judgment of this Court as may be pointed out to it by all interested parties. The said roster shall be verified preferably within 6 months.

iii] Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

iv] In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Civil Application No.3254 of 2020 does not survive and same stands disposed of.

[S.G.DIGE, J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.]

DDC