Bombay High Court

RASHEED KHAN MOHAMMED HANIF KHANversusABDUL GAFFAR SHAIKH AHMED AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The observations in paragraph 4 of the impugned order are not of perpetual effect and the writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

Rasheed Khan filed a writ petition challenging observations made by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 26.08.2021 regarding his position as secretary of a trust. The petitioner argued that subsequent developments, namely a change report, rendered the petition infructuous, but sought a declaration that the observations in paragraph 4 of the impugned order would not have future effect. The respondent agreed to this limited request. The court held that the observations reflected the situation at the time and did not carry perpetual status, and that no prejudice would result. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the effect of the observations made in paragraph 4 of the impugned order on the petitioner’s future rights?
Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to the subsequent change report

Subjects

Writ Petition
Charity Law
Change Report
Procedural Disposal
Observations

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37215


                                                                    19-wp5970.2023.odt



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             31 WRIT PETITION NO. 5970 OF 2023

                             Rasheed Khan Mohammed Hanif Khan
                                             Versus
                             Abdul Gaffar Shaikh Ahmed And Others

                                              ----
            Mr.M.M.Patil-Beedkar, Advocate for petitioner
            Mr.M.M.Baig, Advocate for respondent no.3
                                              ----

                                     CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                     DATE  :      AUGUST 17, 2026
            ORDER :-

                       When the matter is called, only Mr.Patil, learned counsel for

            the petitioner and Mr.Baig, learned counsel for respondent no.3 are

            present. Hence, the matter is kept in the second session.



            2.         In the second session also, none appears for respondent

            nos.1 and 2.



            3.         Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on

            account of further developments, i.e. grant of subsequent change

            report, the Writ Petition has virtually turned infructuous. However, he

            makes a moderate submission that the observations at paragraph 4 in

            the impugned judgment and order dated 26.08.2021, passed by

            learned Jt. Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad (page 55 of compilation
                                      2                          19-wp5970.2023



of this Writ Petition) may not come against him in future on any

count. He, therefore, requests to observe so.



4.          Mr.M.M.Baig, learned counsel for respondent no.3 agrees

to that extent.



5.           The portion in paragraph 4 in the impugned judgment

and order dated 26.08.2021, passed by learned                   Jt. Charity

Commissioner, Aurangabad reads thus:-


                  “(4)          ……..
                                …….. On perusal of the Schedule-I
                  from record and proceeding it shows that, Rashid
                  Khan is shown as Joint-secretary and
                  Mohammad Iqbal is shown as secretary on said
                  Trust. It shows that, appellant though contending
                  the Rashid Khan was the secretary of the said
                  Society, in the election in the year 1994 and
                  same is pending. Considering the submission of
                  appellant mentioned in the appeal memo is
                  shows that, the no any change report in the
                  name of Rashid Khan as a secretary is accepted
                  till now.”



            Apparently, those observations were corresponding to

the then prevailing situation and would not carry any perpetual

status.
                                     3                        19-wp5970.2023




6.          Keeping all contentions open to all the parties in respect

of the said portion, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. I find that no

prejudice would cause to any party due to such observation.




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


KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…