LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-728

MUNIR HAJIMOHAMMAD RANGWALA Vs. CHARITY COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD

Decided On July 20, 2022
Munir Hajimohammad Rangwala Appellant
V/S
Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayers :-

(2.) The prayers would suggest that the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent No.3 in initiating the election process by its letter dtd. 12/7/2022. A specific prayer and the grievance of the petitioner is that such an action is in violation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in MCA No.189 of 2022.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Koshti, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Division Bench vide order dtd. 8/7/2022 passed in the Contempt Petition being Misc. Civil Application No.189 of 2022, has directed that the entire procedure of election is required to be completed and initiated by the officers mentioned therein, however the respondent No.3 has passed an order dtd. 12/7/2022, whereby it is observed that the preliminary voters list shall be published on 13/7/2020 between 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He has submitted that the aforesaid communication, addressed to three officers mentioned therein, is illegal and in contravention to the directions issued Division Bench of this Court. He has further referred to the various communications of the same date i.e. the order dtd. 15/7/2022 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Further, the communication dtd. 15/7/2022 is also referred by him, which is issued by the Superintendent of the Public Trust Registration Office and lastly, learned advocate Mr.Koshti has referred the order dtd. 15/7/2022 issued by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, appointing Shri V.K. Kadia, and Shri Hardik Patel, for overlooking the entire election process. Thus, it is submitted that the communication dtd. 12/7/2022 issued by the respondent No.3 is absolutely illegal and in contravention of the observations made by the Division Bench. He has submitted that respondent No.3 has no authority to issue such communication in view of the order of the Division Bench. No further submissions are advanced.