Bombay High Court
Ravindra Vitthalrao Meshram vs The Joint Charity Commissioner, ... on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
07. WP 1067 of 2023.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1067/2023
Ravindra Vitthalrao Meshram
...Versus...
The Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Shri R.D. Karode, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 16/02/2023
1. Heard Shri R.D. Karode, learned counsel for the
petitioner. The petition challenges the judgment dated
05/01/2023, passed by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner, Amravati whereby the delay of 162 days in
preferring an appeal against the judgment and order passed on
11/01/2022 by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Akola has been condoned.
2. Shri Karode, learned counsel for the petitioner
takes exception to this order contending that the reasons given,
are not supplemented by any material and therefore do not
constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act.
3. In the instant case, it is not the position that the
proceedings, are the personal proceedings of the respondent
07. WP 1067 of 2023.odt
no.3. The matter relates to the Trust and filing of the change
report. The reasons given in the application at page 15, indicate
that the respondent no.3 was not aware of passing of the
judgment dated 11/01/2022 and acquired knowledge about it
on 24/02/2022, on which date, he applied for certified copy,
which was received by him on 22/04/2022 and the appeal
came to be filed on 31/07/2022. It is material to note that the
delay is not of such a quantum as to non-suit the respondent
no.3, from filing appeal, challenging the judgment of the
Assistant Charity Commissioner. Though Dilip Rambhau Wadal
Vs. Bharti Pravin Parse 2021 (3) ALL MR 106 has been relied
upon, to contend that the delay could not be condoned, what is
material to note is that in Dilip Wadal (supra) a finding was
rendered by the Court that the stand taken was falsified by the
material on record. That is not the position here. The principles
regarding condonation of delay have been enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013)
12 SCC 649 (para 21 and 22), considering which, I do not see
any reason to interfere in the impugned order, condoning the
delay of 162 days. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Digitally signed bySHAILENDRA
SUKHADEORAO WADKAR
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Signing Date:17.02.2023 16:14 Wadkar
