1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5792 OF 2008 Sudhir s/o Kisanrao Kadam, Age: 35 years, Occ: Pujari, R/o. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. PRESIDENT, Shri Tuljabhavani Bhope Pujari Mandal, Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad and another. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Shri Tuljabhavani Temple Trust, Tuljapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, through its Chairman, the Collector, Collectorate, Dist. Osmanabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. P.V. Mandlik, Sr. Advocate holding for Shri. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Smt. Yogita M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners claimed to be the office bearers of Shri Tuljabhavani Bhope Pujari Mandal, Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. The petitioners pray for directions to respondent No.1 to give share in the annual income as declared under judgment and order dated 06-08-1950 of Suit No.59/1 of 1957 Fasli (1947-48 A.D.) and the judgment and order dated 25-28/11/1960 in First Appeal No.124/1957 and 125/1957. The petitioners further seek direction to respondent No.2 the Collector, Osmanabad to give representation to the petitioners in the local committee set up by the Government for administration and management of respondent No.1 trust as per the judgment and order dated 06-08-1950 in Suit No. 59/1 of 1957 Fasli (i.e.1947-48 A.D.) and the judgment and order dated 25-28/11/1960 in First Appeal No. 3 124/1957 and 125/1957. The petitioners were given 1/3rd share in Dan-peti(Donation Box) but are not getting such share in other sources of income derived by the trust. The petitioners representatives are not accommodated in the local management committee by the Collector. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not execute the decree as suit was not filed against the present respondents. Counsel submitted that for the inaction of the Collector, the petitioners can invoke extraordinary Writ jurisdiction and therefore, Writ Petition is maintainable. 3. Shri P.V.Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the petition is not maintainable. It is filed at a belated stage. The petitioners are indirectly seeking execution of decree. The Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioners were not parties to the original suit. Respondent No.1/the Collector, who is Chairman of the Managing 4 Committee is looking after the administration of the trust and therefore, there is no need to take representatives of the petitioners on the Committee. It was submitted that the Charity Commissioner framed Scheme, against which, the proceedings were filed in the High Court and the matter is subjudice. Pending proceedings the Committee headed by the Collector was constituted and the said Committee is looking after the Management of the Trust. The Senior Counsel further submitted that in effect and in substance, the petitioners are seeking execution of the decree which shall not be permitted and allowed to be done, at this stage. 4. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Perused the necessary documents and reply filed. We find that at this stage detail scrutiny of the record placed before us and rival contentions need not be scanned. In effect, the petitioner seek relief under judgment and decree passed in the year 1950 in Suit No. 5 59/1 of 1957 Fasli ( i.e. 1947-48 A.D.) and the judgment and order in First Appeal No. 124/1957 and 125/1957 disposed by the High Court. Admittedly, the present respondents were not the parties to the proceedings of the suit. Reliance is placed on the judgment and order dated 06-08-1950 in suit No. 59/1 of 1957 Fasli ( i.e. 1947-48 A.D.). In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be invoked. We are not inclined to entertain the petition. 5. The Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Pujaris are getting 1/3rd share out of auction of Dan-peti but are not getting such share in other sources of the income which is derived by the trust. The Collector, who is the Chairman of the Committee, is best suited to manage the affairs of the trust at present and therefore, in that view of the matter also, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. 6 Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/JUNE10/wp5792.08