Arvind vs Shriram

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The only short question as argued by Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate for the petitioner which falls for consideration is that whether an Authority who holds and record a finding that a particular Revision is not maintainable in view of the fact that a Reference is pending before this Court, can still proceed an endeavour to decide the proceedings on merits.

I have heard Mr. C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. P.A. Kadu, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.R. Agrawal, learned Advocate for respondent.

Mr. Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate points me out para 19 of the impugned order where there is a categorical finding recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati in Revision Petition No.39/2025 that in view of the conflicting judgments of this Court and in view of the fact that a Reference is pending, Revision is not maintainable. However, the said Authority does not stop here and proceeds to decide the proceedings on merits. This in my considered opinion is totally illegal.

Having recorded a finding that no Revision is maintainable, the Authority i.e. the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati, ought to have stopped at that juncture and would not have ventured to decide the proceedings on merit.

Mr. P.R. Agrawal, learned counsel also, however, concedes to this position regarding the conflicting judgments of this Court and a Reference is pending.

In view of this, following order is passed.