:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2138 OF 2008 Shri Mahadev Akaram Pawar ..Petitioner Vs. Shri Sahebrao Nivrutti Pawar and anr. ..Respondents Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for petitioner. Mr. Tejpal Ingale for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 01, 2008. Date : April 01, 2008. Date : April 01, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ingale appears for the respondent no.2. 2. By the impugned order dated 25/2/2008 the Joint Charity Commissioner at Kolhapur was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner and registered as Misc. Application No. 22 of 2007 for transfer of change report Nos.351 and 352 of 2004 :2: pending on the file of the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Sangli. 3. It was submitted that in Misc. Application No. 581 of 2003, an order came to be passed on 1/1/2004 directing the enquiry regarding the 32 members who were added in the meeting held on 31/3/1992 and as the said enquiry was not completed within a fixed period, the applicant has filed an application praying for completion of the said enquiry before the change reports are taken up for adjudiction, but the said application was rejected. In addition, there were subsequent applications taken out which were also rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. On the basis of these orders the applicant claimed before the Joint Charity Commissioner that he would not get justice at the hands of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and, therefore, he had prayed for transfer of the change reports as noted hereinabove. 4. The Joint Charity Commissioner noted that the :3: membership of 32 persons was decided in the meeting held on 31/3/1992 and almost more than 13 years’ period had lapsed. In addition, in Misc. Application No. 581 of 2008 the applicant was not a party. He also noted that if certain orders were passed against the applicant by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the applicant was not without remedy to challenge the said orders before the higher forum. The Joint Charity Commissioner, therefore, rightly held that passing of judicial orders against the applicant cannot be the reason for transfer of the change reports to any other Assistant Charity Commissioner and the application was directed to be filed. 5. The view taken by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the impugned order cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)