Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Baburao Sitaramji Patil and Manikrao Gulabrao Tatte, as President and Manager of Shri Vivekanand Seva Sangh, Lehgaon, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08/02/2011 passed by the incharge Deputy Charity Commissioner. The impugned order rejected their application (Exh.13) seeking permission to file an additional reply in proceedings under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, which were initiated by the respondents for directions regarding proper administration of the trust. The petitioners had initially filed a reply on 31/01/2011, and on 08/02/2011, they filed two applications: Exh.13 for additional reply and Exh.14 for permission to file documents. The Deputy Charity Commissioner allowed Exh.14 but rejected Exh.13 on the ground that the application lacked averments explaining why the additional reply was necessary. The petitioners argued that the additional reply was needed to complete pleadings in support of the documents already permitted. The respondents opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the rejection was unjustified as the documents were already allowed, and the additional reply was necessary for proper adjudication. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Deputy Charity Commissioner to allow Exh.13 and proceed with the main application expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Charity Administration - Filing of Additional Reply - Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, Section 41A - The petitioners sought to file additional reply to support documents already allowed to be filed. The Deputy Charity Commissioner rejected the application solely on the ground of lack of averment of necessity. The High Court held that the authority ought to have allowed the application to complete pleadings and ensure proper adjudication, as the documents were already permitted. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Charity Commissioner erred in rejecting the application for filing additional reply without considering the need for completing pleadings.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 08/02/2011, and directed the Deputy Charity Commissioner to allow application Exh.13 and proceed with the main application expeditiously.
Law Points
- Right to file additional reply
- Natural justice
- Opportunity of hearing
- Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950 Section 41A
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 155
Writ Petition No.860 of 2011
Mr. A.S. Chandurkar for petitioners, Mr. V.M. Deshpande for respondents
Baburao s/o Sitaramji Patil and Manikrao s/o Gulabrao Tatte
Shriram s/o Asaram Bansod, Shankarrao s/o Shivramji Landge, Vasudeorao s/o Narayanrao Jane, Ruprao s/o Shivramji Landge
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Deputy Charity Commissioner rejecting application for additional reply in proceedings under Section 41A of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 08/02/2011 and allow application Exh.13 for filing additional reply.
Filing Reason
The Deputy Charity Commissioner rejected the application for additional reply on the ground that it lacked averments explaining necessity.
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Charity Commissioner allowed application Exh.14 for filing documents but rejected Exh.13 for additional reply.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Charity Commissioner erred in rejecting the application for additional reply without considering the need to complete pleadings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that additional reply was necessary to complete pleadings in support of documents already allowed to be filed.
Respondents opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The Deputy Charity Commissioner ought to have allowed the application for additional reply to complete pleadings, especially when the documents were already permitted to be filed. Rejection solely on lack of averment of necessity was unjustified and contrary to principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The authority has rejected the same primarily on the ground that there is no averement in the application as to why the additional say is necessary.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that application (Exh.13) was sought to be filed so as to complete the pleadings, and in support of the documents, which have been allowed to be filed by the authority by virtue of the order passed on Exh.14.
Procedural History
The respondents filed an application under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (numbered 219 of 2010) before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The petitioners filed a reply on 31/01/2011. On 08/02/2011, they filed two applications: Exh.13 for additional reply and Exh.14 for permission to file documents. The Deputy Charity Commissioner allowed Exh.14 but rejected Exh.13. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950: Section 41A
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
