1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1299 of 2011 Prof. Javed Anwar Sheikh ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Law and Judiciary Deptt., Mumbai and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, A. G. P. for respondent nos.1 and 4. Mr. A. S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent no.2 Mr. S. M. Ukey, Advocate for the respondent nos.5 to 13. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 2nd August, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.3 to forthwith take steps to effect the appointments of the trustees as per the scheme framed in accordance with law irrespective of the pendency of any review application before the Principal Seat at Bombay. It appears that the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur had, by an order passed in the year 1970, framed a scheme for administration of the respondent no.2-Trust under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The first body of the trustees was appointed in the year 1984 and thereafter the trustees were regularly appointed till the year 2002. In the year 2002, new trustees were 2 appointed and the tenure of the said trustees came to an end in the year 2005. A writ petition challenging the selection procedure was filed in this Court and was registered as Writ Petition No. 3437 of 2005. The matter was, however, directed to be placed before the Principal Seat at Bombay, where connected petitions seeking a declaration of the trust being a Wakf were pending. All the petitions were clubbed together and were finally decided on 27.09.2010. The petitioner moved an application on 14.10.2010 requesting the respondent no.3-The District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur to appoint the new set of trustees over respondent no.2-Trust. The respondent no.3, however, did not appoint the trustees mainly on the ground that a review application was pending at the Principal Seat at Bombay against the judgment dated 27.09.2010. Hence, by the present petition, the petitioner seeks the afore-stated relief. We see nothing wrong with the action of the respondent no.3 in refusing to take steps in the matter, in view of the pendency of the review application before the Principal Seat at Bombay. It is necessary to note that the petitioner was also one of the parties to the writ petition and is also a party to the review application. In case the petitioner desires that the review application should be heard at the earliest, the petitioner could have moved the Bench at the Principal Seat at Bombay in this regard. The respondent no.3 must have refused to take the steps 3 for appointment of the trustees as per the scheme as that could be rendered as an exercise in futility in case the judgment passed by the Principal Seat at Bombay, dated 27.09.2010, is reviewed. Instead of availing the other remedies, which may be available to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent no.3 to immediately take steps to effect the appointment of the trustees. Even otherwise, there was no appointment of the trustees from the year 2005 till this date and we fail to follow why the petitioner cannot wait till the review application is decided. We feel that the petitioner ought to have waited for the decision in the review. As a result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale