1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5303 OF 2008 Jayram K. Mudliyar .......Petitioner versus R.S. Luth Education Trust & ors........ Respondents. Mr. J. N. Pawar for the Petitioner Mr. Surel Shah for the Respondents 1 to 3 ,5 and 6. Mr. A. H. Palekar AGP for Respondent no. 7. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 30TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: 1. The Petitioner questions the legality and validity of an order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nashik region, Nashik dated 24th June 2008 passed in exercise of powers under section 41 B of the Bombay Public Trust Act. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is a stranger to the trust, and he is not a person having interest in the trust, the affairs of which 2 was subject matter of inquiry under section 41 B of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Under the scheme of section 41 B, the Charity Commissioner has a discretion to institute an inquiry in the event if a complaint is received by him in writing from a person having interest in the public trust. The petitioner did make a complaint to the Deputy Charity Commissioner purportedly under section 41 B of the Act. However, by order dated 17-12-2007 the complaint came to be rejected, by holding that the applicant does not have any locus standi, in view of the fact that he has no concern whatsoever with the trust in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness concedes that the petitioner has no connection with the trust and he does not have any interest in the trust. It is also fairly conceded that the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner dated 17-2-2007 holding that the petitioner has no locus has not been challenged. 3. The grievance in the present petition is that though the complaint filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, nonetheless the Deputy Charity Commissioner directed Suo Moto inquiry to be held and thus in the said Suo Moto proceedings initiated consequent upon the complaint filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had a right to participate and substantiate the allegation made in the complaint. Perusal of the record reveals that after dismissal of the complaint made by the petitioner, the 3 Deputy Charity Commissioner caused an enquiry/investigation to be made by the inspector and the said inspector has called upon the non-applicant to produce the documents and after making an inquiry, has submitted a report. Once the complaint filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no interest in the trust, there does not remain any lis between the parties. Sub section (1) of section 41 B brings home the point. The phraseology used therein speaks of initiating an inquiry on a complaint made in writing by a person having an interest in the public trust or in the alternative to cause suo moto inquiry. In the present case an order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner holding that the petitioner does not have any interest in the trust has not been challenged and the same has assumed finality. 5. Perused the impugned order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The same does not suffer from any illegality much less patent warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is also brought to my notice that the present petitioner had, besides filing various complaints before different authorities, also filed Public Interest Litigation, but the same has been disposed of in view of the fact that the respondent no.5 in the said petition decided the appeal in favour of the trust. Even otherwise in view of the fact that the petitioner is not a person 4 interested in the trust, I decline to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition thus stands dismissed in limine. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J)