1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.605 OF 2008 Jalind Shankar Godse .. Petitioner Versus Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Diskal and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for petitioner CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6th February 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Venegavkar for petitioner. Perused the application Exh.A and the order thereon. 2 2. Petitioner applied for a direction that the elections of first respondent Trust may be held under the supervision and control of Assistant Charity Commissioner. It was the apprehension of petitioner that despite being member of Trust, he will not be allowed to take part in the electoral process and the elections will be concluded hastily. The term of the Board of Trustees was expiring on 27th November 2007. 3. In the order under challenge, the Dy.Charity Commissioner has referred to an order dated 27th January 1994 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune directing first respondent Trust to hold elections after approving Voters’ list and inserting the names of interested persons. In other words, all those who are interested in enrolling themselves as members should find place in voters’ list, is the direction. Thereafter, 1159 persons have been enrolled as members. Now, the request is that 3 not only these persons but all those who have paid or remitted annual subscription should be enrolled as members and should be allowed to take part in electoral process. It is not disputed that General Body meeting had been convened on 2nd December 2007 for the purpose of holding elections. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, therefore, refused to issue any directions. He has rightly held that if the persons who are eligible to take part in the electoral process have been prevented or those ineligible have been allowed to participate, then, these are matters which cannot be decided under section 41(a) by interfering with the electoral process. In such circumstances and when the election process is complete, in the opinion of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Satara, the petitioner has a remedy to challenge the same. He has refused to interfere. 4. In my view, if the petitioner satisfies 4 the criteria of "persons having interest" as stipulated by Section 2(10)(d) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and is beneficiary of the first respondent Trust, then nothing prevents him from initiating such proceedings as are permissible under the Act, including invoking the jurisdiction under section 41(a) once again. 5. Keeping all those remedies open, so also, the contentions therein, this petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)