GEETA MANIKRAO PATIL AND ANOTHERversusSANDHYA VISHWANATH TARATE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42144


                                                    1                         956...odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1401 OF 2026
                          GEETA MANIKRAO PATIL AND ANOTHER
                                              VERSUS
                       SANDHYA VISHWANATH TARATE AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
                        Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Dhengle Babasaheb A.
                         Advocate for Respondents : Mr.Salgare Vitthal G.
                                                  …

                                        CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                        DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.           The Petitioners are challenging the impugned order passed

              on an application to set aside the order dated 01.01.2026, passed below

              Exhibit 62, whereby the right to adduce the evidence of the present

              Petitioners has been forfeited. Even, the Application filed by the

              Petitioners for setting aside the forfieting evidence of the Petitioners, has

              been rejected vide order dated 05.01.2026.


              2.           It is the contention of the Petitioners that the enquiry under

              Section 41 E of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, is presently pending

              before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad.


              3.           It is submitted that the order came to be passed forfeiting the

              right to adduce evidence of the present Petitioners on the background
                                    2                        956...odt


that, the witness who was suppose to be examined by the Petitioners was

not available for the examination, hence the examination of witness could

not take place Therefore, on the aforementioned ground, the Application

has been filed for setting aside the order forfeiting the right to adduce

evidence.


4.          It is stated that the Advocate for the Petitioners could not

remain present due to his personal difficulty, since his wife was admitted

in the hospital. Although he had filed Application seeking adjournment,

but the said Application was delayed by 20 to 30 minutes before the order

has been passed by directing to close the evidence.


5.          It is submitted that considering that the absence of the

Advocate for the Petitioners was not intentional and an Application was

belatedly filed for seeking adjournment. The order of no evidence

deserves to be set aside and the matter may be kept for recording of

evidence of the Applicant. The Application was opposed by the

Respondent by filing a ‘say’ stating that the Application seeking

extension of time dated 01.01.2026, was already rejected, therefore, the

Application does not deserve any consideration. On this background the

impugned order has been passed.
                                     3                        956...odt


6.           Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn my attention

to the roznama and submits that the findings recorded by the Joint

Charity Commissioner, are contrary to the roznama.


7.           Learned Advocate for Respondent no. 1 has filed his reply

affidavit and submits that the present matter has been adjourned by the

present Petitioner from time to time only with an intention to prolong the

matter since an offence has been registered against the Petitioner under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Petitioner wants to prolong

till the decision is given or an 'A' summary report is sanctioned in favour

of the Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners have failed to examine the

witness and adduce evidence, hence, the order to adduce evidence has

been rightly forfeited.


8.           I have heard the respective parties and perused the order

impugned as well as Application filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner

has given an explanation for failure to adduce the evidence and also for

failure to cause appearance on the day when the order has been passed

i.e. 05.01.2026.


9.           Considering the subject matter of the enquiry, if the order of

no evidence is not set aside, it would cause irreparable loss and prejudice
                                       4                         956...odt


to the rights of the present Petitioners to participate in the proceedings

and even in the outcome of the decision, which is an enquiry pending

before the Charity Commissioner. Therefore, in my view, in order to

subserve the ends of justice the order impugned deserves to be quashed

and set aside by granting opportunity to the Petitioner to lead evidence.


10.          The Respondent herein can be compensated in terms of costs

that can be granted for the inconvenience caused to the Respondent no. 1.

The order below Exhibit 66 in Application no. 1 of 2021, passed by the

Joint Commissioner, Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside, subject to

payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-.


11.          At this juncture, it is pointed out by the learned Advocate for

the Petitioner that at the time of issuing notice itself, this Court has issued

notice subject to condition that the Petitioners shall deposit an amount of

Rs. 10,000/- in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner, Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar. Therefore, they have already deposited the amount.

Therefore, no further costs should be imposed on them.


12.          The amount of Rs. 10,000/- so deposited by the Petitioners

in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner shall be granted in favour of

Respondent no. 1, by way of costs.
                                      5                       956...odt


13.            With the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.


14.            The parties shall appear before the Charity Commissioner,

Aurangabad, on the scheduled date i.e. 21.09.2026, and the Petitioners

shall adduce evidence and not seek further adjournments in the pending

enquiry.




                                      ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC