vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6944 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6944 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6944 OF 2008 Niket V. Mehta ... Petitioner V/s. Joint Charity Commissioner Greater Mumbai Region & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha with Ms.S.Mandehar, Debdina Mukhopadhyay for Petitioner Ms.Nichani a/w Mr.Raj Patel for Respondent No.2 Mr.Shane Sapeco for Resp. Nos.9 to 11 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 15, 2008 OCTOBER 15, 2008 OCTOBER 15, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner rejecting the application made on behalf of the petitioner for accepting his written statement on record. The Joint Charity Commissioner has held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings which were pending; that he was negligent in respect of the pending proceedings and that in view of the order of this Court allowing the written statement of the parties to be filed by 28.4.2008, the application has been rejected. 2. The main conention of the petitioner is that he received papers and proceedings of the matter pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner only on 11.6.2008 : 2 : and, therefore, could not file his written statement prior to that date. It is contended that the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in favour of his father i.e. Respondent No.13 due to which he was not given any papers. Moreover, it is submitted that the power of attorney had been revoked and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been served independently by the respondents. 3. All these contentions have been considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The contention that the petitioner had not been served cannot be accepted as there would have been no direction for filing a written statement had the petitioner not been served with the application filed u/s 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It may be possible that somebody other than the petitioner had accepted service of the proceedings but this obviously would have been because the petitioner had authorised the person to accept service. There is no dispute that the respondent No.13 had time and again called upon the petitioner to sign the written statement which apparently the petitioner has not done. Therefore, the submission that the petitioner was not served with papers and proceedigns cannot be accepted. 4. The contention that the petitioner was not wholly aware of what proceedings had been filed u/s 41D also : 3 : cannot be accepted. There is a finding of the Joint charity Commissioner that the petitioner has been thoroughly negligent in pursuing his rights. A letter has been issued on behalf of the petitioner by the advocate on record in this petition on 4.8.2006 informing one Ranjit Vaghani that the petitioner had revoked the authority given to him, Mr.Chetan Kapadia and Mr.Ishwar Nankani, to appear for him. The power of attorney in favour of the petitioner’s father has been revoked by the petitioner on 30.3.2007 i.e. after the proceedings were filed. The petitioner, therefore, was aware that not only about the proceedings but also of the fact that he had revoked the power of attorney executed in favour of his father. Not a single application has been filed thereafter by the petitioner or his advocate before the Joint Charity Commissioner for copies of the proceedings; nor has any letter been issued either by the petitioner or his advocate to the applicant before the Joint Charity Commissioner requesting that the proceedings be served on him independently. In this situation in my opinion, no fault can be found in the discretionary order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. 5. It is true that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v/s Kumar & Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v/s Kumar & Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v/s Kumar & : 4 : ors., reported in (2006) 1 SCC 46. ors., reported in (2006) 1 SCC 46. ors., reported in (2006) 1 SCC 46. However, such a principle would apply to parties who are not negligent and not to a litigant like the petitioner. Several judgments have been cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner. However, the facts in the present case do not warrant the application of the ratio in those judgments. 6. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that it was for the respondent to demonstrate that the proceedings have been served on the petitioner prior to 11.6.2007 is also without merit. Had the proceedings not been served on the petitioner or his authorised agent, there would be no question of him having to file the written statement within a stipulated time. In these facts and circumstances, the petition is rejected.