1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.115 OF 2011 SHRAWAN MANWAR ..VS.. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Sudame, advocate for petitioner Shri S.V.Sohoni, advocate for respondent no.2 CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: MARCH 01 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim on 26.11.2010 allowing the application filed by the respondent no.3 for substituting his name in place of the reporting trustee and rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for substitution of his name in place of the reporting trustee. There is no dispute that in pursuance of change which allegedly occurred in the trust a change report was filed by one Shri Shivram Tukaramji Raut. Shri Raut expired during the pendency of the change report enquiry proceedings. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.3 filed application for substituting their names in place of the deceased reporting trustee Shri Raut. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, allowed the application filed by the respondent no.3 and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 26.11.2010 by filing this petition. 2 On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and allowing the application filed by the respondent no.3 the incoming trustee as per the change report enquiry proceedings. Though it appears that there was a resolution of the managing committee that the change report enquiry proceedings should be prosecuted, through the petitioner, the Assistant Charity Commissioner rightly observed that the objector/ respondent on.2 had stated in his reply that he had conducted a meeting on 5.10.2008 and in that meeting the petitioner was present. In view of the fact that the petitioner was present in the meeting held by the objector, the respondent no.2 – the Assistant Charity Commissioner was apprehensive that the petitioner would not prosecute the proceeding effectively and may support the objector/ respondent no.2. Moreover, it is necessary to note that the objector/respondent no.2 had given his no objection for substitution of the name of the petitioner in place of deceased reporting trustee, whereas he had objected to the substitution of the respondent no.3 in place of the deceased reporting trustee. This conduct clearly showed that the objector was supporting the petitioner who was also present in the meeting held by the objector on 5.10.2008 and was raising an objection to the substitution of the name of the respondent no.3 in place of deceased reporting trustee. The conduct of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 according to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, 3 did not show that they were interested in seeing that the change report should be accepted. Moreover, the respondent no.3 was an incoming trustee of the trust as per the change report enquiry proceedings and being an incoming trustee, it was most likely that he would prosecute the change report enquiry proceedings diligently to see that the change report is accepted. The submission made on behalf of the respondent no.2 that only a person who is authorized by the managing committee, can be substituted in place of the reporting trustee to prosecute the change report enquiry proceeding is liable to be rejected. So also the judgment reported in 1978 Mh.L.J. Page 789 and relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 cannot be made applicable to the peculiar facts of this case. The respondent no.2 seems to be seriously objecting to the substitution of the respondent no.3 in place of the reporting trustee and prompting the name of the petitioner for his substitution. Probably, this conduct of the respondent no.2 heavily weighed with the Assistant Charity Commissioner as the respondent no.2 was the objector and he was readily agreeable to the substitution of the petitioner in place of the deceased reporting trustee. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 was not present in the meeting on the basis of which change report enquiry was filed and hence he would not be a proper person to prosecute the change enquiry proceeding is liable to be rejected as it is clear from the minutes of the meeting in which the appointments of the trustees to the managing committee were made that the respondent no.3 was present in the said meeting. Since the order passed by the Assistant Charity 4 Commissioner, does not suffer from any error, much less a jurisdictional error, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP