PANKAJ GHANASHYAM RANNAVRE Vs. ARVIND NARAYAN DHAWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith by consent.

(2.) The petitioner has questioned propriety and legality of the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner rejecting the application of the petitioner to transfer Inquiry No.1538 of 1997 from the file of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur to the file of Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. In the impugned order, the learned Charity Commissioner, Nagpur also imposed costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/ upon the petitioner as a condition precedent payable within three days w.e.f. 8.5.2014. Furthermore the Assistant Charity Commissioner was directed to proceed with the inquiry on day to day basis without granting adjournment to the applicant. The petitioner has taken exception to the impugned order on the ground that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur could not have on his own modified earlier order dt.13.4.2009 passed in the Revision Application No.3 of 2008 by the same Authority i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. That order was confirmed when challenged before the District Judge 7, Nagpur by filing Regular Civil Application No.21 of 2009. The learned District Judge has confirmed the order on the ground that it is legal and proper. Thus, the learned District Judge, Nagpur had, by reasoned order, agreed with the learned Joint Charity Commissioner that Inquiry No.1538 of 1997 is required to be remitted back to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur for de novo trial by specifically directing that the record and proceedings of the inquiry be sent back to the Office of Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur by the impugned order rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for transfer of the record and proceedings in Inquiry No.1538 of 1997 to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur.

(3.) I am now informed that the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, in view of the impugned order, proceeded with the inquiry on day to day basis. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to participate in the inquiry as it was to be concluded as early as possible. The grievance of the petitioner is that when earlier order for remanding the inquiry to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur was passed and when the order became final, there was no propriety for the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to change the earlier order which had attained finality so as to direct the Assistant Charity Commissioner to dispose of the inquiry expeditiously without granting adjournments.