Bombay High CourtCAO/1290/2015ca disposed off

Digambar S/O Balaji Murlidhar And Another v. Joint Charity Commissioner Amravati And 3 Others

2017-06-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 cao1290.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 1290 OF 2015 IN M.C.A. ST. NO.5385 OF 2015 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6806 OF 2013(D) (DIGAMBAR BALAJI MURLIDHAR & ANR...VS.. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI & 3 OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.R.Deshpande, Advocate for applicants.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 15, 2017.

Heard.

The original petitioners have filed this application praying that delay of 229 days in filing the review application be condoned. The petitioners have filed the review application praying that the order passed by this Court on 30th June, 2014 by which the petition filed by them is dismissed be reviewed.

The petition arose out of the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner directing the Inspector of the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner to hand over the charge of the trust and the property as per the directions given earlier by the Joint Charity Commissioner by the order passed on 29th January, 2013. In the order dated 30th June, 2014 passed by this Court by which the review is sought it is recorded that earlier order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 29th January, 2013 is not challenged and

2 cao1290.15 therefore, the directions given to the Inspector of the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner could not be faulted with as those directions are consequential.

One of the ground on which the review is sought is that the earlier order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner on 29th January, 2013 was also challenged in Writ Petition No.6806 of 2013 in which the order dated 30th June, 2014 came to be passed and as the advocate who was engaged by the petitioners did not attend and argue the matter, it is not noticed by the Court. Though the submission prima-facie appears to be appealing, in my view, it is misdirected inasmuch as it is the fact that till the consequential order came to be passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner giving directions to the Inspector of the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner, the earlier order was not challenged and the earlier order is challenged simultaneously in the same petition.

Be that as it may, on examining the application praying for condonation of delay I find that the explanation does not constitute "sufficient cause" on the basis of which the inordinate delay can be condoned. Apart from this, the applications are filed on 14th March, 2015 and there has been no sincere efforts on the part of the applicant/ petitioners to get the applications heard.

In view of the above, the civil application is dismissed. Consequently the Miscellaneous Civil Application Stamp No. 5385 of 2015 is also rejected.

JUDGE RRaut..