Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the present case, the petitioners were resisting a revision application filed by the respondent for the appointment of one f the petitioner in the petitioner’s Trust. The petitioners claimed that the revision application was filed after the lapse of the period of limitation. The Joint Charity Commissioner, before whom the matter was presented rejected the application of the petitioner and decided that the question of belated submission would be decided with the main revision application. Thus aggrieved, the HC approached the High Court.
The HC noted that the revision application was filed under Section 70-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 under which the Charity Commissioner could invoke his jurisdiction over in any case mentioned in the Section 70. While a prescribed limit existed for the application, there was no such limit for the Commissioner to exercise his jurisdiction in the cases under Section 70. The HC then proceeded to observe that in case an application was filed after the prescribed time limit, the application could be made with an application for condonation for the delay in the original application. The main appeal can only be taken after the codonation is accepted based on its merits.
Under these circumstances, the HC directed the Joint Charity Commissioner to first look whether the application for revision was well within a reasonable time. However the decision of the Commissioner was held regarding the proceeding of the issue to be carried out together with the revision application. In case the decision regarding the filing of the revision application within a reasonable time came negative, further proceeding would not be necessary.
Subir Kumar Banerjee v. Neetu Singh, WP No. 11994 of 2019
86540
103860
630
114
59824