1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4798 OF 2009 Rajendra Narayan Rane ..Petitioner Vs Shri.Kalbhairav Devasthan & others. .. Respondents Mr.Ashutosh Gole, for petitioner. CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE, J. DATE : 30/07/2009 PC: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Heard Mr.Ashutosh Gole, learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against an order dated 27th January, 2009 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2007 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ratnagiri Region, Ratnagiri in Change Report No.189 of 2007. 2 3. The Change Report was in respect of incoming and outgoing trustees of the trust. Admittedly, petitioner was not a party to these proceedings (Change Report No.189/2007) since he was neither incoming nor outgoing trustee of the trust. However, the petitioner, in appeal against the order on the change report, raised several questions including the question whether the temple of lord Kalbhairav belongs to Rane family or the trust. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Joint Charity Commissioner in paragraph No.6 made following observations: “6) One of the grounds mentioned by the applicant for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal against the judgment & order Dt.07/07/2007 passed in Change Report No. 189/2007 is to the effect that, no opportunity of hearing was given to him by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the change report. The original record & proceedings of Change Report No.189/2007 were called at the instance of the applicant. The original record & proceedings of the change report disclose that, said change report was filed to enter the names of incoming and outgoing trustees of respondent No.1. The name of the present applicant does not appear in the names of 3 outgoing trustees. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of the applicant that, no opportunity of hearing was given to him. U/s.70 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 only the aggrieved and affected person can file the appeal against the judgment & order recorded u/s.22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. In the instant case, the applicant was not a party to the proceedings of Change Report No.189/2007. Therefore, he can not be regarded as a aggrieved and affected person. Therefore, prima facie there is no material to justify that, applicant is an affected person. It appears from the application of the applicant that, the applicant intends to challenge the question whether the temple of lord Kalbhairav belongs to Rane family or the trust i.e. Respondent No.1. The trust respondent No.1 was registered on 4/11/1989 as per the order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ratnagiri Region, Ratnagiri in application No.193/1987. Thus, the trust i.e. Respondent No.1 was registered long back. The question whether the temple of lord Kalbhairav belongs to a Rane family or a public trust can not be decided in the appeal filed by the applicant. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the applicant does not seem to be prima facie maintainable. If the appeal is not maintainable, 4 the question of condoning the delay caused in filing the said appeal also does not arise. In view of all these circumstances to hear the appeal by condoning the delay would be futile exercise. I therefore, hold that, the applicant has not shown any sufficient cause to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal against the judgment & order Dt.07/07/2007 passed in Change Report No.189/2007. 4. Having considered the reasons recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner, in my opinion, the impugned order deserve no interference in exercise of extremly limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and dismissed as such. Dismissal of the petition, however, shall not preclude the petitioner from adopting any other remedy, as may be available in law, for redressal of his other grievances. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)