1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.239 of 2008 Shri Laxmandas Gururamkrishnadas Bairagi since deceased through his heirs and representatives: (a) Arvind Gurulaxmandas Bairagi & ors. Petitioners Vs. Bansilal Raghunath Laddha & ors. Respondents Mr.P.B.Shah for petitioners. Mr.Dilip Boadke for respondents. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 16, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners who are the LRs of the original applicant in Inquiry Application No.1614 of 1952 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Satara. While the said application was pending for some or the other reason, the present respondents made yet another application for enquiry which came to be registered as Inquiry Application No.1744 of 2005. This petition arises from the order passed on application at Exhibit 52 filed in both the enquiries by the present petitioners for seeking leave to adduce 2 evidence, that is by way of examination-in-chief subject to cross-examination by the other side. This application has been rejected on 1/11/2007 by the impugned order. 2. Rule. Mr.Bodke waives service. 3. As the petition impugns an interlocutory order, it is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 4. Mr.Bodke has placed on record a copy of the Roznama in Inquiry Application No.1744 of 2005. By the impugned order the application at Exhibit 52 was rejected mainly on two grounds viz. (1) that the application at Exhibit 52 was filed on 25/10/2007 when the Inquiry Application was fixed for final arguments since the last three-four dates and (2) the evidence closing purshis at Exhibit 95 was filed by the applicant-petitioners on 17/1/2006 in Inquiry Application No.1614 of 1952. 5. If regards be had to the Roznama, it is clear that both these grounds are unsustainable and they are contrary to the record. With the help of the learned counsel for both the parties I have perused 3 the Roznama starting from 31/1/2007 and it is noted that for the first time on 9/3/2007 the applicants in Inquiry Application No.1744 of 2005 made an application at Exhibit 37 praying for clubbing both the enquiry proceedings and deciding together and the said application was allowed on that day itself. On 15/3/2007 the present respondents and applicants in Inquiry Application No.1744 of 2005 submitted affidavit by way of examination-in-chief at Exhibit 38. The cross-examination of the said witness was completed on 11/7/2007 and on the same date an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of the present petitioners was filed at Exhibit 44. The Asst.Charity Commissioner did not pass any order and the enquiries were adjourned to 16/7/2007 on which date at Exhibit 46 the Advocate of the present respondents filed an application seeking leave to produce certain documents by way of evidence and a list of documents at Exhibit 47. On 11/7/2007 the present petitioners applied for appointment of Court Commissioner by application at Exhibit 45 and on 27/7/2007 the present respondents submitted their say on the said application and it was allowed. The Court Commissioner’s report did not come on record till 13/9/2007 and the enquiries were adjourned to 4 24/9/2007, 5/10/2007 and on 30/10/2007 the enquiries were adjourned to 1/11/2007 on which date the application at Exhibit 52 was rejected and for the first time the enquiries were listed for final arguments. 6. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, therefore, committed a manifest error in holding that by the time application at Exhibit 52 was submitted the enquiries were adjourned on 3-4 occasions for final arguments. 7. Secondly the purshis at Exhibit 95 was filed by the present petitioners in their Inquiry Application i.e. No.1614 of 1952 and after the enquiries were clubbed and were directed to be heard and decided together, nothing stopped the present petitioners from leading evidence as opponents in the subsequent Inquiry Application i.e. No.1744 of 2005 after the present respondents filed their evidence closing purshis. The approach of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in passing the impugned order is not in keeping with the legal requirements and the said order has denied proper opportunity to the present petitioners to lead evidence in rebuttal in 5 Inquiry Application No.1744 of 2005. 8. Hence this petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 1/11/2007 is quashed and set aside and consequently the application at Exhibit 52 stands allowed. The affidavit by way of examination-in-chief filed by the present petitioners at Exhibit 44 is directed to be taken on record and the said affiant Shri Ratanlal Ramchandraji Toya will be cross-examined by the present respondents on the next date. The enquiry proceedings shall be heard and decided as per law as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31st August 2008. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (B.H.MARL