In these petitions, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as for respondent nos.1 and 2 have shown urgency, as the matter namely, Revision Application No.17 of 2003 pending before Joint Charity Commissioner was going on and as no stay was granted there in this matter and only liberty for seeking adjournment was reserved, the Joint Charity Commissioner was likely to proceed with the matter and dispose of the same.
The priority was granted and after hearing the matter wherein counsels for the contesting parties arrived at a consensus, however, it transpired that the learned advocate who is representing the Joint Charity Commissioner has filed sick note. In my view, this sick note shall not deter the Court in any fashion in differing any order being passed in this matter, or else it is likely to result into prejudice to the contesting parties and in fact in S.C.A. No. 4307 of 2012, even notice is not issued and Joint Charity Commissioner, is, therefore, not being represented by learned advocate Shri Upadhyaya who has filed sick note.
The S.C.A. No.16271 of 2011 was not on the board, but as there was consensus between the contesting parties' advocates, the papers were called for and the same were heard and being disposed of in absence of learned advocate Shri Upadhyaya who has represented the Joint Charity Commissioner, as it is not likely to prejudice Charity Commissioner in any manner and differing the order, would be of no avail to anyone.
In view of this consensus between the learned advocate for the contesting parties, the Court is inclined to issue following directions namely;
The Joint Charity Commissioner before whom the Revision Application No.17 of 2003 is pending shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and/or his representative only on the aspect as to whether the Revision Application could be said to have become infructuous after the said hearing is granted and written submissions, if any, is taken on record. The Joint Charity Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law taking all the contentions of the petitioner as well as respondent nos.1 and 2 into consideration qua all the points urged before him in respect of the Revision Application No.17 of 2003, as there was urgency shown on earlier occasion and there was an order of deciding the Revision Application within stipulated time, it would be in the fitness of things that the order be passed on or before 21.05.2012.
The Court has not expressed any opinion on merits, as no submission is canvassed on merits on behalf of both the sides. So far as the second matter i.e. 16271 of 2012 is concerned, it would be open for the petitioner that in case, if the judgment is adverse, the petitioner shall raise the very same issue in First Appeal that may be filed against the order.
In view of these directions learned advocate Shri Mangukiya seeks permission to withdraw both the petitions. Permission as sought for is granted. The matters are disposed of as withdrawn. Notice in S.C.A. No. 16271 of 2011 is discharged. No costs.
Permission is granted to the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties to communicate this order by way of Fax as well as other methodology.
Direct service today, is permitted.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Top