SHRIKANT SATISHRAO SALUNKE AND ANOTHERversusTHE RETURNING OFFICER FOR LOKMANYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA PANCHINCHOLI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42808



                                                                      11-sr21.wp10812.2023


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 10812 OF 2023

            Shrikant Satishrao Salunke
            And Another                                              ..Petitioners
                  VERSUS
            The Returning Officer for
            Lokmanya Shikshan Sanstha,
            Panchincholi, And Others                                 ..Respondents

                                               ----
            Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioners
            Mr.S.P.Sonpavale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 5
            Mr.Nitin Jagdale, Advocate for respondent no.2
            Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for respondent no.3
            Mr.N.B.Khandare, Senior Advocate h/f. Mr.M.P.Tripathi, Advocate for
            respondent no.4
                                               ----

                                      CORAM :       AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                      DATE  :       SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
            ORDER :-

                       Heard Mr.V.D.Salunke, learned advocate for petitioners;

            learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 5; Mr.V.D.Gunale, learned

            advocate for respondent no.3; and Mr.N.B.Khandare, learned senior

            advocate i/b. Mr.Tripathi, learned advocate for respondent no.4.

            2.         The petitioners had filed Writ Petition with the following two

            substantive prayers :-

                             B)    To issue writ of certiorari or any other
                             appropriate writ or direction in the like nature,
                             the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 passed by
                             respondent no. 1 Returning Officer may kindly be
                             quashed and set aside;
                                          2                                11-sr21.wp10812



                    C)      To issue writ of mandamus or any other
                    appropriate writ or direction in the like nature,
                    the legally enrolled 33 members including the
                    petitioners in legally held elections under
                    supervision of the Officer from Charity
                    Commissioner may be directed to be included
                    in final voters list.


3.           Learned advocate for the petitioners would further

submit that during the pendency of Writ Petition, the election

programme was declared by the Returning Officer and hence the

petitioners were constrained to amend the prayer clauses under the

orders of this court.


4.           Now,    when     the   matter      is    taken     up   for     hearing,

Mr.Salunke, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are restricting the prayer only to the extent of challenging

the latest change report based on the elections held on 03.09.2023.

For the purpose of seeking such restricted directions, Mr.Salunke

learned advocate takes me through to paragraph 5 of the order

dated 17.07.2023 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.8421 of

2023 (Panchakshari Babayya Swami and others Vs. Deputy Charity

Commissioner, Latur and ors.). He would submit that his client has

reasonable    apprehension        that    due        to   the   observations           in

paragraph 5 of the order dated 17.07.2023, learned Charity

Commissioner may not allow the petitioners to challenge the change
                                     3                      11-sr21.wp10812



report based on the election dated 03.09.2023. He would submit that

this court vide order dated 17.07.2023, on the basis of the

submissions made by the parties thereto, observed that there was

no validly elected managing committee even after 2003. He would

submit that the petitioners being the stake-holders in the litigation

were not arrayed as party to the said Writ Petition and hence the

true facts remained to be brought to the notice of this court.

However, he submits that although there are no directions or

observations whereby the petitioners are impaired from challenging

the subsequent change report pursuant to the election dated

03.09.2023, he would seek clarification to that effect. He submits

that petition may be disposed of with this clarification.


5.          Mr.Gunale, learned advocate for respondent no.3 and

Mr.Khandare, learned senior advocate appearing for respondent no.4

places their no objection if the petitioners file any objection to the

change report and if the Charity Commissioner decides it in

accordance with law by giving them full opportunity of hearing to

oppose such application/objection.


6.          In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of

with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the change report filed

pursuant to the election dated 03.09.2023. Needless to mention the
                                     4                    11-sr21.wp10812



Charity Commissioner, in the event of such challenge, shall issue

notice to all the stake-holders including the present respondents and

shall grant full opportunity of hearing.


7.             While deciding the objections which is proposed to be

raised by the present petitioners, learned Charity Commissioner shall

hear all the parties on all aspects including the locus of the

petitioners.     With this, the petition stands disposed of.         All

contentions are kept open.




                                  [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                                ………..


KBP