1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3783/2009 (Bapu Shikshan Sanstha ..vs.. Dy.Charity Commissioner and another) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 07, 2009 The matter is heard finally by consent of parties. By order dated 20/3/2009, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur has condoned the delay of about 20 years without recording any reasons and by imposing costs of Rs.2000/-. Advocate Shri A.S.Chandurkar contends that change report was filed in the year 2008 contending that it was also filed in the year 1986. Without verifying this fact and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to whom change report relates, delay was condoned mechanically. Advocate Shri Dhabe for reporting trustee (respondent No.2) contends that the change report of removal of petitioner was filed way back in the year 2 1988 and as that record was misplaced, it was required to be re-filed in 2008. He states that as such, there is no delay at all. However, by way of abundant precaution, application for condonation of delay came to be filed. He states that on merits, petitioner will get an opportunity to point out whether change report was filed in 1998 or not. He further states that in parallel proceedings, petitioner has accepted that said change took place in the year 1988. Advocate Shri Chandurkar states that reasons for condonation of delay i.e. filing of change report way back in 1988 and its loss, are being disclosed before this Court for the first time. In the circumstances, it is apparent that disputed question arose and it needed to be resolved before ordering condonation of delay. Unfortunately, respondent No.1 has condoned it only by imposing costs of only Rs.2000/-. The said respondent No.1 has not even mentioned that change report was filed in 1988 and it was misplaced or was not traceable. As such, it is also clear that the petitioner ought to have been heard before condoning such delay. In view of these findings, the impugned order dated 20/3/2009 is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the 3 Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in Enquiry No. 1816/2008 on 30th November, 2009. The said authority is directed to recite the prayer for condonation of delay after giving opportunity to the petitioner, as early as possible and in any case by 18/01/2010. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.