1 wp7867.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7867 OF 2011 1. Shri Chandrakant Bhanudas Bhadane Age : 48 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Samarth Nagar, In front of Cotton Market, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Shri. Prashant Luka Patil Age : 33 years, Occ : Service, R/o 40, Dwarka Nagar, A/p. Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Shri. Shantaram Eknath Baraskar Age : 73 years, Occ : Retired, R/o Pratap Jin Chal, A/P. Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. PETITIONERS -VERSUS- 1. Shram Safalya Education Society, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. C/o Shri. Subhash Dodhu Bhandarkar Gayatri Colon, Back side of J.D.C.C. Bank, Branch Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon P.T.R. No. F-877 (Jalgaon). 2. Shri. Subhash Dodhu Bhandarkar Age : 66 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Gayatri Colony, Back side J.D.C.C. Bank, Branch Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. Sau. Git Subhash Bhandarkar Age : 63 years, Occ : Household, R/o Gayatri Colony, Back side J.D.C.C. Bank, Branch Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Shri. Vivek Laxmanrao Bhandarkar Age : 47 years, Occ : Business, R/o Udyan Prasad Japan Jin, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 2 wp7867.11 5. Shri. Dilipsingh (Indrasingh) Ajabsingh Age : 57 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Bhortek, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 6. Shri. Raman Devsingh Patil Age : 67 years, Occ : Retired, R/o Back side of Urdu School, Balajipura, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 7. Shri. Arjun Ambadasrao Khadke Age : 51 years, Occ : Service, R/o In front of M.J. College, Chanakya Apartment, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS ...... Shri B.R. Waramaa, advocate for the petitioners Shri A.G. Talhar, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 6. ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28th November , 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner had filed the proceedings under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as "the BPT Act, 1950"). The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Misc. Application before the District Court. The District Court rejected the same as not 3 wp7867.11 maintainable. The petitioner has assailed the said order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner rejecting the Petition under Section 41-D of the BPT Act, 1950 in the present Writ Petition. 3. Shri Warma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the final order rejecting the application under Section 41-D of the BPT Act, 1950. Learned counsel contends that by order dated 07.12.2007, the Joint Charity Commissioner had directed the present respondents to file on record the documents as contemplated in the application Exhibit-25. The said order was not complied with, still the Joint Charity Commissioner proceeded further. Even if, the Roznama is perused, it would show, the matter is pending for compliance of order passed below Exhibit-25 and further for hearing on draft charges, but the Joint Charity Commissioner straight way rejected the Petition under Section 41-D of the BPT Act, 1950. 4. Shri Talhar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6 supports the order and submits that the documents of which the production was sought were in possession of the petitioner himself. The petitioner has been dismissed from service and his appeal is also dismissed. The Joint Charity Commissioner has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 41-D vis-a-vis the facts of the case and has rightly rejected the 4 wp7867.11 application. The hearing was given to all the parties and if the petitioner has chosen not to remain present then the petitioner has got no locus to make a grievance. 5. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the order. It is not disputed that the proceedings under Section 41-D of the BPT Act, 1950 are set in motion on an application by the present petitioner. It is not that the Joint Charity Commissioner had taken suo- moto cognizance but the proceedings commenced on a Petition by the present petitioner. Perusal of the Roznama, it is manifest that the present respondents were directed to produce the documents. The record does not show that the said documents were produced and still the proceedings were decided. Even the record does not show that the petitioner has been given opportunity of hearing. The cardinal and fundamental principles of natural justice has not been complied. 6. Though, the order impugned is dated 07.12.2007, the petitioner has given explanation that the said order was challenged in a Petition before the District Court and it is only in April, 2011, the District Court opined that the said application is not maintainable and thereafter the present Writ Petition has been filed. 7. In view of above conspectus of the matter, the impugned order 5 wp7867.11 can not be sustained. 8. In the result, I pass the following order : ORDER (i) The impugned order is set aside. The parties are relegated before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik. The Joint Charity Commissioner Nashik shall decide the proceedings initiated by the present petitioner under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 bearing Application no. 22 of 2005 afresh after giving opportunity to all the parties. (ii) It is made clear that whatever proceedings had taken place and whatever enquiry has been conducted pursuant to the application no.22/2005, same would also be considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The parties shall appear before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik on 16th December, 2011. (iii) It is made clear that I have not observed anything on merits and the Joint Charity Commissioner shall decide the same on its own merits. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp7867.11