Dnyan Sanvardhan Mandal, Wadhona, Tah. Nagbhid, Chandrapur, Thr. President, Shri Sanjay G. Dorlikar v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur And Others

1 wp5634.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5634 of 2016 Dnyan Sanvardhan Mandal Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, and Others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the petitioner Mrs. Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. P.A. Gode, Advocate for respondent No.3.

CORAM :MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : NOVEMBER 25, 2019 None for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 informs this Court that subsequent developments have rendered this petition infructous.

2.

The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition are that three orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, whereby the application for intervention filed on behalf of respondent No.3 in three proceedings had been granted.

3.

While issuing notice on 05/10/2016, this Court had granted stay of the impugned order, as a result of which, the respondent No.3 was prevented from intervening and participating in the proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. But, with passage of time, the said change reports initiated

2 wp5634.16.odt before the Assistant Charity Commissioner were decided and the change report was rejected, against which a challenge is now pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner. In that proceeding, the present respondent No.3 has filed an application for intervention, which is pending.

4.

It is also informed that after change report was rejected, the respondent No.3 was elected as one of the trustees and change report proceedings pertaining to same are pending before the competent authority.

5.

In view of the above, it is obvious that the writ petition has been rendered infructous that is perhaps the reason why the petitioner is not represented through counsel, when the petition is called out for hearing. This Court is satisfied that with the passage of time this writ petition is rendered infructous and it is disposed of as such.

JUDGE MP Deshpande