Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43384 (BOM)

NAMDEV MARUTI SURYAWANSHI AND ORS v. SHARAD SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL WATHAR THROU. TRUSTEE HUSSAIN MOHAMMAD BHALDAR AND ANR

WP/17584/2024 · 2025-02-05

Shri Sandeep V Marne

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sonali Mane 19-WP-17584-2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17584 OF 2024 Namdev Maruti Suryawanshi and Ors … Petitioners Versus Sharad Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Wathar Throu. Trustee Hussain Mohammad Bhaldar and Anr … Respondents Mr. V.A. Shastry (Through V.C.) for the Petitioners. Mr. Shrikant Yadav i/b Ms. Suvarna Yadav for Respondent No.1. Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl. GP a/w Ms. Tanu Bhatia AGP for Respondent No.2/State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 5 FEBRUARY 2025. P.C. : 1) The Petition challenges Order dated 29 August 2024 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur rejecting the application preferred by the Petitioners at Exhibit 140 for deletion of paragraph Nos. 2, 4 to 9 of additional affidavit of evidence. It appears that by order dated 24 April 2023, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has permitted filing of additional affidavit of evidence by rejecting the objection raised by the Petitioners. In that view of the matter, Petitioners could not have applied for deletion of certain paragraphs in the said affidavit of evidence by filing an independent application. ___Page No. 1 of 2 ___ 5 February 2025 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2025.02.06 15:58:36 +0530 Sonali Mane 19-WP-17584-2024.docx 2) It is the case of the Petitioners that some of the statements made in the additional affidavit of evidence are not supported by pleadings. If that is the case, this issue can always be raised by the Petitioners at the time of final decision of the proceedings by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. If any portion of the evidence sought to be led through the additional affidavit of evidence is unsupported by pleadings, the Assistant Charity Commissioner is not without jurisdiction to ignore such evidence. Petitioners would be at liberty to raise this objection at the time of final decision of the proceedings. I therefore do not find any reason to entertain the present Petition. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 2 of 2 ___ 5 February 2025