1 WP No.695/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.695 of 2010 Shri Abu Bakar Qu-reshi & Anr ... Petitioner versus Mandangad Taluka Vikas Mandal Mumbai & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.P.S.Dani i/b S.A. Rajeshirke for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Pai i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, G.P for respondent nos.3, 6 to 8. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 27th September 2010 P.C. 1. The only prayer made in this petition is as under:- (a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ or direction and direct the respondents no.3 to 6 to appoint fit person for managing affairs of educational institution for managing Respondent no.9 to 12 School and direct Respondent no.1 & 2 to hand over entire management to aforesaid fit person. 2 WP No.695/10 2. Respondent nos.3 to 6 are the State of Maharashtra, Shri N.D.Khose. Assistant Charity Commissioner, U.S.Iyer, Joint Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner. It appears proceedings were initiated under section 18 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and in Writ Petition No.4396/05 by an order dated 5th September 2005, the Charity Commissioner or some officer authorised by him was to appoint a fit person to exercise powers in relation to the institution at Mandangad which was previously run by the Mandangad Trust. The Charity Commissioner, it appears by order dated 12th March 2009 remanded the proceedings back to the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Assistant Charity Commissioner by letter dated 15th August 2009 communicated to the Charity Commissioner her inability to continue with the proceedings. The petitioner therefore instead of moving the Charity Commissioner for assigning the proceedings to some other Assistant Charity Commissioner or to some other Officer has filed this petition again seeking a direction to the same effect. This Court has already issued a direction to the Charity Commissioner or an Officer authorised by him to appoint a fit person which we have referred to above. Now this Court cannot go on repeatedly making the same direction again and again. The petition, in our opinion is completely misconceived and misdirected. Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)