Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/811/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 811 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10948 of 2009
===================================
VIVEKANAND
KELAVNI MANDAL & 1 - Applicants
Versus
JOSHI
KANAIYALAL NATWARLAL & 6 - Opponents
===================================
Appearance
:
MR
NIRAL R MEHTA for Applicants.
MR JV JAPEE for Respondent Nos.1 -
4.
MS VANDANA BHATT, AGP for Respondent Nos.5 -
7.
===================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 13/07/2010
ORAL ORDER
The applicants
original respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed this application
seeking modification and/or clarification in the order dated
13.10.2009 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.10948 of 2009 directing the respondent No.5 to decide the
representation dated 03.10.2009 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Heard Mr.
Niral R. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the applicants, Mr.
J. V. Japee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to
4 and Ms. Vandana Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
Mr. Mehta has
submitted that against rejection of the applicants’ change report,
appeal was filed before the Charity Commissioner being Appeal No.22
of 2009. The said appeal was decided by the Charity Commissioner on
11.06.2010 and change report filed by the applicants was accepted.
The opponent Nos.1 to 4 original petitioners have also filed
change report which was rejected. However, against the said change
report, no appeal was preferred. He has, therefore, submitted that
the opponent Nos.1 to 4 have no locus to make any representation and
hence, the representation should not be decided by the opponent
No.5.
Mr. J. V.
Japee, learned advocate appearing for the opponent Nos.1 to 4, on
the other hand, has submitted that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter and direction was issued only to
decide the representation. The applicants can point out all these
facts before the respondent No.5 who is to decide the representation
and hence, the order passed by this Court does not require any
clarification or modification.
Having heard
learned advocates appearing for the parties and having considered
the rival submissions, the Court is of the view that the Court has
not expressed any opinion on the issues involved in the petition and
simply directed the respondent No.5 to decide the representation.
The issue still remains as to whether the opponent Nos.1 to 4 have
any locus to make such representation. The respondent No.5 has,
therefore, to consider this issue while deciding the representation,
more particularly, in view of the subsequent development which took
place as a result of the appeal preferred by the present applicants
before the Charity Commissioner has already been decided and the
change report filed by them has been approved by the Charity
Commissioner. Hence, while deciding this representation, subsequent
developments will have to be taken into account. The respondent
No.5 is, therefore, directed to decide the said representation in
light of the appeal decision and after hearing the parties
preferably, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
writ or certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier.
With
this direction, this Misc. Civil Application is accordingly disposed
off. D.S. permitted.
Sd/-
[K. A. PUJ, J.]
Savariya
Top