MACHINDRA BABURAO MASKE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:25251 1 11062.25WP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 944 WRIT PETITION NO.11062 OF 2025 MACHINDRA BABURAO MASKE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.R.P.Bhumkar AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.K.B.Jadhavar … CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 11.09.2025 P.C. : 1] By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order of transfer of the proceedings pending before the respondent no.3 i.e. the Deputy Charity Commissioner to any other Charity Commissioner. 2] The petitioner has stated in para no.3 of the petition that the petitioner had filed an application before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed, against the respondent no.3 [Dy. Charity Commissioner] dated 01.11.2023, stating therein that the petitioner has filed change report 2 11062.25WP Nos.968/2022 and 1233/2015, which are pending before the respondent no.3 and made allegation that the respondent no.3 has demanded a bribe of Rs.5 lac and since the petitioner denied to pay the said amount, the respondent no.3 deliberately tried to adjudicate the matters pending before him by passing the order against the petitioner. It is further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed complaint before the respondent no.1 dated 25.10.2023 and alleged that the respondent no.3 is indulged in corrupt activities and is trying to pass illegal orders in absence of the petitioner in C.R.Nos.968/2022 and 1233/2015. It is further stated that the respondent no.3 is hand in cloves with the respondent nos.5 and 6 and has tried to pass illegal orders against the petitioner. 3] Thereafter, the petitioner filed application No.1 of 2024 before the respondent no.2 for transfer of the cases from respondent no.3 to any other Court as the petitioner is not having faith in respondent no.3. By order dated 08.08.2025, the respondent no.2 i.e. Joint Charity 3 11062.25WP Commissioner has rejected the said application. While passing the impugned order dated 08.08.2025, the Joint Charity Commissioner has noted facts particularly in para nos.7, 8, 9 and 10, as under : The roznama reads that on 16.10.2023 the applicant 7. and his advocate were absent. The opponent No.2 and his advocate were present. The right of applicant to cross examine the non-applicant was forfeited. Thereafter, at about 1.45 p.m., the applicant appeared, but he did not take any steps. On 01.12.2023, the applicant and his advocate were present. It appears that there were some contentions in the pursis Exh.19, might be contemptuous. It appears that the advocate for the applicant made submissions to the authority that the applicant is not willing to proceed with the inquiry before the presiding officer. The applicant also stated that he is willing to make application to set aside the order dated 16.10.2023 forfeiting his right to cross-examine the witness.
Decision
On 01.12.2023, there was submission from the non- 8. applicant that his advocate used to appear on each Friday before Joint Charity Commissioner at Latur and therefore, next date shall not be kept on Friday. The said submission was opposed by the advocate for the applicant. The inquiry was adjourned to 23.02.2024 for notice of contempt. On 06.09.2024, the applicant informed the learned Dy.C.C. about filing of transfer petition. The learned Dy.C.C. decided not to proceed for contempt against the applicant. On 04.10.2024, the applicant filed an application to set aside the order of no-cross. On 06.12.2024, he also filed application to keep the proceeding pending. The learned Dy.C.C. passed order that the change reports will be disposed of before 31st December. Later on, the learned Dy.C.C. allowed the application Exh.23 and thereby allowed to set aside no-cross order passed against the applicant. The case is now at the stage of cross-examination of the non-applicant. 9. The change report Inquiry No.968/2022 is also 4 11062.25WP pending on the stage of cross-examination. The record also shows that at Exh.11, on 01.11.2023, the applicant has filed complaint application before the learned Dy.C.C. stating that earlier presiding officer was giving dates of Friday, but the present presiding officer is not accommodating the applicant on Friday. He also made certain bold allegations against the presiding officer. He also wrote letter to this authority on 19.11.2024, requesting to transfer the cases to any other court. He also made complaint application to the Hon'ble Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai and the Hon'ble Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. There are certain bold allegations in this complaint and application which demonstrate that the applicant has no faith in the authority. It is required to be noted that these allegations are without any supporting proof. 10. As aforesaid, the initial dissatisfaction of the applicant which appears from the rozmama is about fixing the date of the case on Friday. Therefore, on 01.11.2023, the applicant has filed complaint application before the learned Dy.C.C. stating that earlier presiding officer was giving dates of Friday, but the present presiding officer is not accommodating the applicant on Friday. Later on, the applicant made certain allegations against the learned Dy.C.C. and the learned Dy.C.C. was intending to issue notice of contempt. Thereafter, the learned Dy.C.C. decided not to issue such notice. Thereafter, there was order of no-cross examination, but later on said order was set aside. What appears from all the facts and circumstances is that as the learned Dy.C.C. not fixed the date of Friday, therefore there was dissatisfaction about the learned Dy.C.C. 4] After examining all material placed on record, the Joint Charity Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 and rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent no.3 are baseless and 5 11062.25WP without justification and the petitioner failed to show substantive ground to transfer the C.R.No.1233/2025 and 968/2022. In the present petition, the petitioner has not challenged the findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner by the impugned order in para nos. 10 has observed that the initial dissatisfaction of the applicant, which appears from the roznama is about fixing of the date of the case on Friday. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not able to controvert the findings as noted in the order. The petitioner filed an application against the respondent no.3 stating that the respondent no.3 has demanded bribe of Rs.5 lacs from the petitioner and the petitioner has no confidence in the respondent no.3, as such, the present proceedings be transferred to any other Court. 5] It has to be noted that the transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court is serious matter and merely because the petitioner is not having faith on the respondent no.3, this may not be a ground to 6 11062.25WP transfer the matter from one Court to another Court. Undisputedly respondent no.3 is an Judicial Officer posted as Dy.Charity Commissioner. 6] Considering this aspect of the matter, no case is made to interfere in the impugned order. Hence, the present Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- . The cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the office of the High Court Legal Services, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad in four weeks. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC