Mohd Sharif Shaikh Yasin Sidique And Others v. Muktar Ahmed Noor Nabi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9023 OF 2015

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9030 OF 2015

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9049 OF 2015

Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.B.Pawar, Advocate for the respondent.

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.) DATE : 29/08/2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

All these petitioners are identically placed and all the litigating sides are identical. All of them are litigating with reference to 3 change reports bearing No.719/2004, 286/1998 and 253/2010, respectively. In all these matters, the petitioners are aggrieved by the identical orders dated 18/06/2015 by which petitioner Nos.1 to 3 namely Mohd.Sharif, Shaikh Mohd., and Haji Rizwan have been

permitted to intervene in the change report enquiry proceedings. Petitioner Nos.4 to 11 have not been permitted to intervene by the impugned orders on account of the following observation of the authority concerned :- "Remaining applicants Nos.4 to 11 are not produced any documentary evidence showing that they are the persons having interest in the dust hence only applicant No.1` to 3 are allowed to join as party opponent to the proceeding." Mr.Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the petitioners strenuously expresses an apprehension that by the above quoted observation, these 7 applicants will now be precluded from establishing their membership and their interest in the trust though they are the members of the trust and the record evidences this aspect. I do not find that the apprehension of the petitioners is well placed. Petitioner Nos.

1 to 3 have been allowed to intervene and since they are leading a particular group, they would also be at liberty to prove the membership of their colleagues who are petitioner Nos. 4 to 11. So also, the above quoted observation of the authority below is due to there being no record before it. This impression is not a final conclusion of the authority below.

permitted to intervene, can lead oral and documentary evidence and prove the membership of the whole group of 11 persons. The authority below would naturally consider the entire oral and documentary evidence while deciding the change reports. With the above observations, these 3 petitions are disposed of. Needless to state, the Authority below would consider the oral and documentary evidence before it while deciding the fate of the change reports.

At the request of the learned Advocates, the authority below may endeavour to decide the change reports of 1998 and 2004 expeditiously and preferably within a period of 6 (six) months. ( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)