Judicare Law Associates

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Sagheer A. Khan i/b Judicature Law Associates for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 8TH AUGUST 2011 P.C. : Leave to amend and substitute Exhibit-A to the revision application. After the amendment is carried out, issue notice to the respondents subject to payment of process and furnishing of copies. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Hassnain Kazi i/b Judicare law Associate,Advocates for the petitioner/applicant. Mr Saeed Akhtar, Advocate for Respondent Nos 1 to 8. Mr.R.M.Momin, Advocate for Respondent no.9. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 24/01/2013 PC: Heard Mr.Jassnain Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Saeed Akhtar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 8 and Mr R.M.Momin, learned counsel for respondent no.9. My Saeed Akhtar invited my attention to Suit No.122 of 2009 instituted by respondent nos. 1 to 8 before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal at Aurangabad. He submitted that defendant no.2- Alimuddin s/o Rukhnoddin Peerzade is not impleaded in the present proceedings. In view of this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to implead Alimuddin s/o Rukhnoddin Peerzade as respondent no.10. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. List the petition for admission on 7.2.2012. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2011 Fahimuddin s/o Naseemuddin Peerzade ..Applicant. Vs. Zia ul Hasan Waris Ali Peerzada & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Sagheer A Khan i/b Judicare Law Associates for the Applicant. Mr. Saeed Akhtar for Respondent nos.1 to 8. Mr. Mujahid Ansari h/f Mr. R.M. Momin for Respondent no.9. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 05/04/2013. PC : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 By this Civil Revision Application, Applicant – original Defendant no.1 challenges the order dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad below Exhibit 18 in Wakf Suit no.122 of 2009 rejecting Petitioner's Application dated 23rd November, 2009 for holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit no.122 of 2009 being barred by law and the same to be rejected. 3 A few facts of the matter are as under: On 10th January, 1975 Dargah Peer Sayyed Sadiq Shah Hussaini, Nashik City registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act having PTR No.B184 (Nashik). Thereafter, the some interested persons filed an Application in the year 1979 for framing scheme being Application no.24 of 1979 under section 50A(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner dated 21st August, 1986 a scheme for the management and administration of the said Trust was framed. As per the said scheme, the Applicant was appointed as a Trustee being first Board of Trustees. Thereafter, Trust Application no.402 of 1986 came to be filed under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for setting aside the judgment and order passed in Trust Application no.24 of 1979 passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 21st August, 1986 and to set aside the Scheme. The said Trust Application is pending. During the pendency of the said Application, Respondent nos.1 to 6 – original Plaintiffs filed Suit no.122 of 2009 before the Presiding Officer, Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal at Aurangabad seeking perpetual injunction restraining Applicant – original Defendant no.1 from causing obstruction and/or 2/7 interference in the supervision and management and also from causing obstruction and/or interference in the performance of Sandal & Urs cermonies of the Wakf Institution Darga Peer Syed Saddique Hussaini situated at Old Nashik commonly known as Badi Darga. 4 In the said suit the Applicant preferred an Application dated 23rd November, 2009 (Exhibit 18) for following reliefs: "This application may kindly be allowed and as this Hon'ble Tribunal is having no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit being barred by law, therefore, it deserves to be rejected and oblige." 5 The said Application was rejected by the Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad by impugned order dated 20th April, 2011. Hence, present Civil Revision Application. 6 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad failed to appreciate that when the proceeding for setting aside the scheme is pending before the competent 3/7 authority i.e. in the Court of District Judge at Nashik in Trust Application no.402 of 1986, Presiding Officer, Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit no.122 of 2009 and restrain the Applicant from acting as trustee of the said Trust. He further states that the Apex Court in the matter of Board of Wakf, West Bengal and another vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another reported in (2010) 14 SCC 588 held that the proceedings pending before the competent authority on 1st January, 1996 will continue and in that case the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 will not be applicable. Para 16 of that authority reads thus: "16 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that since the matter fell under the purview of the Wakf Act, only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter, and not the civil court. However, in view of the decision of this Court in Sardar Khan vs. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth), the Wakf Act will not be applicable to suits/appeals/revisions/ proceedings commenced prior to 111996 when the Wakf Act came into force." 7 He further relied on judgment in the matter of Sardar Khan and Ors vs. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1447, in this authority also the Apex Court taken similar view. Para 14 of that authority reads thus: "14 On a conjoint reading of subsection (5) of Section 7 and Section 85, the result would be that the Act will not be applicable to the pending suits or proceedings or appeals or revisions which have commenced prior to 1.1.1996 i.e. coming into force of the Wakf Act, 1995. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge was not correct in the case of Syed Inamul Hag Shah (supra). Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has gone wrong in relying on the decision rendered by the Single Judge in the case of Syed Inamul Hag Shah (supra). Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for deciding the appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously." 8 On the basis of these submissions the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant states that the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit no.122 of 2009. 9 On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos.1 to 8 vehemently opposed the present Civil Revision Application. He submits that in view of Section 112 of the Wakf Act, 1995 all provisions are applicable wherever the question arises whether the property and/or any dispute comes under the Wakf Act. He further states that the Applicant was not appointed as a Trustee according to the Scheme framed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. He states that actually the Applicant is from female branch of Sayed Niyamatulla. On the basis of these submissions the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent nos.1 to 8 states that there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application. 10 I have heard both the sides at length. 11 It is to be noted that in view of the facts that the challenge of the Scheme is pending before the District Court at Nashik in Trust Application no.402 of 1986 and unless and until a competent Court declares that the Applicant ceases to be trustee of the said Trust, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any restraining order from taking part in the management of the said Trust. Even considering the authority in the matter of Board of Wakf, West Bengal & Anr. (supra) and Sardar Khan and others (supra), I am of the opinion that the Applicant has made out case for admission of this Civil Revision Application and interim protection till the hearing and final disposal of the Civil Revision Application. Hence, Civil Revision Application: Admit. 12 Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c ) which reads thus: "( c ) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Civil Revision Application, this Honorable Court be pleased to stay the proceedings of Wakf Suit no.122/2009 pending before learned Wakf Tribunal at Aurangabad." 13 The learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. (K.K.TATED, J.) katkam

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 26th August, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/10/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 3rd October, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 17/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 17th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada …..Applicant Vs. MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Digitally signed by MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Date: 2022.11.28 10:32:04 +0530 The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. …..Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan a/w Mr. Azeem Shaikh & Tanzila Kazi i/by Judicare Law Associates for Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1. Ms. Sayli Patil i/by Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for Respondnt No.2. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE : 24 th NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C.:- The learned AGP seeks time to take instructions from the Police authorities. Place the matter on 16th December, 2022. (ARIF. S. DOCTOR, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2022 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. .Respondents ----------- Mr.Sharique Nachan, Mr. Aman Khan, Mr. Wasim Karol i/b. Judicare Law Associates for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Tejesh Dande for Respondent No.1-Corporation. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2-CIDCO. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATE : 14 FEBRUARY 2023 P. C. . Time of one week is granted to the learned AGP to obtain instructions in terms of the order dated 24th November, 2022. The instructions shall be obtained prior to the next date of the proceedings. Stand over to 21st February, 2023. ( M. W. CHANDWANI, J. ) ( A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada, Navi Mumbai .. Applicant-Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan, with Ms. Tanzila Kazi and Mr. Amaan Khan, i/by Judicare Law Associate, for the Applicant-Petitioner. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. Mr. R.D. Soni, with Mr. Sujay Gawade and Ms. Mudita Pawar, i/by Shree & Co., for the Intervenor. Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General, with Mr. P.P. Kakade and Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 6-State. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2023. ORAL ORDER : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. } In this Interim Application, preferred by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, the following prayers have been made :- (a). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer or this Hon'ble Court itself be pleased to appoint any suitable officer from the departments of the respondents as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of the Masjid on the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan in accordance with law. (b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to provide police protection for the construction of the Masjid at the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai." Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 was filed by the applicant raising a challenge to the communication dated 27th December 2018 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, by which the applicant was informed that though on 17th November 2018, building permission had been granted by the Municipal Corporation, a likelihood of a law and order situation could arise if the construction was undertaken by the applicant. Hence, the Municipal Corporation temporarily stayed the building permission granted by it on 17th November 2018. In addition, the applicant prayed that the State of Maharashtra be directed to appoint a suitable officer as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of a Masjid as per the approved plan. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 31st January 2022. The impugned communication dated 27th December 2018 came to be set aside by observing that if the Municipal Corporation apprehended any law and order situation, it could seek necessary assistance from the local police station in that regard. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. However, the intervention application filed by Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan came to be dismissed. By urging that the applicant, which was the original petitioner, was seeking implementation of the order dated 31 st January 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this interim application has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while allowing Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had set aside the communication dated 27 th December 2018 issued by the Municipal Corporation. As a result, the temporary stay that was imposed on the building permission on 17 th November 2018 stood vacated. It was thus incumbent upon the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to provide police protection for such construction. It was also the responsibility of the authorities and especially the State Government to appoint a Nodal Officer to facilitate construction of a Masjid on a Plot No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. 1 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Applicant) in the matter between Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2 , it was urged that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of, this Court could consider entertaining the interim application in the disposed of writ petition as the applicant was seeking directions in the furtherance of the order passed in the writ petition. According to learned counsel, if the interim application was not 1 (2009) 2 SCC 164 2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 12962 entertained, the applicant would be required to initiate fresh proceedings on account of inaction on the part of the authorities. The learned Advocate General for the non-applicant nos.3 to 6 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant no.1 joined issue and opposed the interim application on the ground that the relief sought in the interim application was not in furtherance of any directions issued in the writ petition, nor could it be said that the applicant was seeking implementation of the order passed therein. The issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 by the Police Authorities was justified for the reason that until certain factual aspects were verified by the said authority, further instructions could not be issued by that authority. The applicant had been called upon to submit relevant documents, on the basis of which further steps would be taken in the matter. It was thus urged that the interim application need not deserve consideration and the applicant could initiate appropriate proceedings for seeking the prayers made in the interim application. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor-Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan submitted that the intervenors had filed Interim Application No.371 of 2022 seeking intervention in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, had been dismissed by the Court on 31st January 2022 while disposing of the writ petition. That order was challenged by the intervenor by filing proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the order dated 9th May 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rejection of the intervention application was wrong. It was noted that the intervenor had challenged the building permission granted by the Competent Authority on 17th November 2018 by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short "Act of 1966"), which appeal was pending. A direction was issued that the proceedings pending before the State Government as well as before the Layout Committee would not be governed by the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 on 31st January 2022. Despite that, the intervenor had not been impleaded in the present interim application and on that ground, the said application was liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having duly considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the interim application does not deserve consideration. At the outset, we may note that prayer clause (a) in the interim application is ad verbatim prayer clause (b) in the writ petition, which reads as under :- "(b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate and suitable writ, direction and pass an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent no.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of Masjid on the said Plot as per the approved plan, in accordance with law." Prayer clause (b) having been sought for in the writ petition and the same not having been granted while deciding the writ petition implies that the said prayer stands refused by this Court. A prayer which was made in the writ petition but not granted while disposing of the writ petition cannot be the subject matter of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition that is filed on the premise that the original petitioner seeks implementation of the directions issued in the writ petition. The remedy for seeking a prayer not granted in the writ petition would not be by way of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition. For that reason, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be considered. Coming to prayer clause (b) in the interim application, which pertains to a direction to be issued to the Commissioner of Police to provide police protection for construction of the Masjid, it is seen that while disposing of Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had observed that if the Municipal Corporation apprehends any law and order situation, it could write to the local police station, which could then provide necessary assistance so as to maintain the law and order. Accordingly, on 13th April 2022, the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation wrote to the Police Commissioner that the applicant had made an application to it in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Acting on that communication, the office of the Police Commissioner – the 6th respondent, on 14th April 2022, sought certain information from the Municipal Commissioner with a copy thereof to the applicant. This, according to the applicant, was not permissible and amounted to the Police Authorities sitting in appeal over the civil rights that had accrued in favour of the applicant pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition. In other words, the applicant is aggrieved by issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 and has indicated that the said authority ought not to have required furnishing of the details that are mentioned in the communication dated 14th April 2022. It is thus apparent that if the applicant is aggrieved by the communication dated 14th April 2022 on the premise that the said authority was not justified in seeking such information, it would be necessary for the applicant to challenge that communication. As long as that communication operates, prayer clause (b) seeking direction to be issued to the respondent no.6 to provide police protection cannot be considered in the interim application that has been filed in a disposed of writ petition. Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. (Supra) indicates that a direction was issued by the High Court holding the petitioners therein entitled to be posted on a post in equivalent scale that was held by them with a further direction to pay them arrears of pay and allowances, if they were posted on a post of higher grade. The learned Single Judge issued the directions, as sought for, in a miscellaneous application in the disposed of writ petition. In appeal, the Division Bench held that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable since the writ petition had been disposed of. The order passed on that application was set aside by the Division Bench. In challenge to the order of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action. However, at the same time, there is no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying to take advantage as the order is couched in ambiguous or equivocal words. Since it was found that the miscellaneous application was filed for pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition, which was for placement in the appropriate grade, it was held that the miscellaneous application was maintainable. This decision has been followed in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Supra). As noted above, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be granted since a similar prayer made in the writ petition was not granted when the writ petition was disposed of. As regards prayer clause (b), unless the communication dated 14th April 2022 issued by the 6th respondent is shown to have been erroneously issued, that relief cannot be granted. The prayers made in the interim application cannot be said to be the prayers made for clarification of the order or for implementing the relief granted in the writ petition. Such request for grant of police protection was under consideration of the 6th respondent and in that regard, factual information has been sought by it. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that communication, it would have to challenge the same, as entitlement to the same has not been decided in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Another pertinent aspect that requires mention is that the applicant was 21-IA-17568-2022.doc Dixit granted building permission on 17th November 2018 to undertake the construction of a Masjid. This building permission itself has been challenged by the intervenor by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Act of 1966 before the State Government. It is stated that even today, the said proceedings are pending. Thus, unless the applicant is armed with building permission that has become final, the question of implementation of an order granting police protection with a view to implement the order granting building permission to construct Masjid cannot be considered in an interim application filed in a disposed of writ petition. Thus, for aforesaid reasons, the Interim Application stands rejected. The applicant is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law for seeking redressal of its grievance. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the prayers made in the interim application on merits and the observations herein are only with a view to decide maintainability of the interim application. [ M.W. CHANDWANI, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]