Gujarat High Court High Court

Prashanvadanbhai vs Assistant on 23 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Prashanvadanbhai vs Assistant on 23 February, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1293/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1293 of 2010
 

=========================================================

 

PRASHANVADANBHAI
M MEHTA - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

ASSISTANT
CHARITY COMMISSIONER - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MIHIR JOSHI, SR. COUNSEL WITH MR
HARSHIT S TOLIA for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PARTH S TOLIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR CB UPADHYAYA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/02/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0 The
present petition has been preferred challenging the order dated
02.02.2010 passed by the respondent Assistant Charity
Commissioner, Bhavnagar in Misc. Application No. 1 of 2010 thereby
removing the name of the petitioner from the Register (PTR) as a
trustee of the Trust known as Daxinamurthy Vidyarthi Bhavan Trust.

2.0 On
10.02.2010, this Court issued Notice to the respondent and ad-interim
relief was granted to the petitioner.

3.0 Today,
when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the District Court is the
only proper authority before whom the application with regard to
appointment (including removal) of the Trustees is maintainable and
Charity Commissioner has no jurisdiction in this regard.

4.0 Mr.

Upadhyaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
stated that impugned order dated 02.02.2010 is withdrawn without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

5.0 In
that view of that matter, the contention raised by the petitioner
would not survive. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Notice is
discharged with no order as to costs. Ad-interim relief granted
earlier stands vacated.

6.0 It
is also stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has already filed application before the District
Court, Bhavnagar. Therefore, the District Court, Bhavnagar will
decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)

niru*

   

Top