-: 1 :- rpw-96/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 96 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2747 OF 2011 Ramakant S. Derekar. ..Petitioner. Versus Jt. Charity Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. A. V. Anturkar i/b Mr. S. B. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. S. P. Kadam for R-3 & 4. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar for R-1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 19, 2011. P. C. : 1. The review petition is filed by the original petitioner in above writ petition for review of the order dated 13/4/2011. By the said order, the aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the election before the appropriate forum. 2. The writ petition arose out of an order dated 25/3/2011 passed by the Jt. Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune below Exhibit-56 in Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2009. By the said order, the Jt. Charity Commissioner overruled petitioner’s objection to the voters’ list. The writ petition was srp -: 2 :- rpw-96/11 dismissed mainly on the ground that election process is at an advanced stage and almost all the stages, except voting were completed. The petitioner, as stated above, was given liberty to challenge the election and for that purpose, the concerned authorities were given directions not to be influenced by the observations made by me in the said order. 3. Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that this review petition is filed for very limited purpose. He submitted that in the event the petitioner challenges the election by filing appropriate proceedings, the concerned authority should not be influenced by the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, which was impugned in the aforesaid writ petition. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the respondents opposed this review petition on the ground that no case for review is made out. Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel submitted that in this review petition he has not raised any grievance qua the observations made by this Court in respect of removal of trustees under section 41-D of the BPT Act. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel, in my opinion, there is necessity to give further clarification that the authority deciding the election proceeding, should not be enfluenced by the observations -: 3 :- rpw-96/11 made by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The above writ petition was not entertained by this Court on the ground that the election process was at an advanced stage. The petitioner was left with the remedy to challenge election by filing appropriate proceedings. I had not gone into merits of the respective contentions and therefore in the concluding paragraph, the concerned authority was directed to decide the challenge to the election without being influenced by the observations made by me in the said order. 5. Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel submitted that the proceeding for challenging the election, is required to be decided ignoring the observations made by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the order impugned in the above said writ petition. I find substance in this submission inasmuch as the election proceedings will have to be challenged before the officer, who is subordinate to the Joint Charity Commissioner and the said officer may get influenced by the observations made by the Joint Charity Commissioner. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the clarification is required to be given to the authority below not to be influenced by the observations made by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Hence, it is clarified that the election -: 4 :- rpw-96/11 proceeding initiated by the petitioner as per the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 13/4/2011, shall be disposed of independently, on its own merits and without being influenced by the observation made in the said order as well as the observations made by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune in its order dated 25th March 2011 below Exhibit-56 in Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2009. 7. Review petition stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) -: 5 :- rpw-96/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APLICATION NO. 299 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 96 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2747 OF 2011 Ramakant S. Derekar. ..Applicant.. Versus Jt. Charity Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. A. V. Anturkar i/b Mr. S. B. Deshmukh for the Applicant. Mr. S. P. Kadam for R-3 & 4. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar for R-1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 19, 2011. P. C. : 1. This civil application is filed for condoning the delay of 129 days occurred in filing review petition. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. Civil application stands disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) srp