1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4584 OF 2009 Shantaram Ramchandra Patil .. Petitioner Vs Maharashtra Rashtrabhasha Sabha and ors .. Respondents Mr Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Mr Deven Chauhan, Adv.Kartik Shukul i/b M/s F & F Associates for respondent nos 1 and 2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 12/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31.1.2009 rendered by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region,Pune, rejecting Application No.32 of 2008 filed by the petitioner under section 36 (2), (3) and (4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act ,1950 (for short,”the B.P.T Act”). The application was filed by the petitioner on 17.6.2008. There is no dispute that the order under section 36(1), according sanction to alienate the trust property, was passed on 11.8.1999. T 2 This order under section 36(1) of the B.P.T Act was challenged by the petitioner in a Writ Petition No.2662 of 2001 and the said writ Petition was dismissed on 18.10.2001. The petitioner carried the order passed in the Writ Petition to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4930/2004, arising out of Special Leave Petition (c) No. 14485/2002. The appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3.8.2004. After having lost in the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed the application under section 36 (2) (3) (4) of the B.P.T. Act seeking revocation of the sanction on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. 3. Mr Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the earlier round of litigation will not come in the way of the petitioner seeking revocation of the sanction since the order according sanction under section 36(1) was challenged on the ground that it was not in the interest of the trust. He submitted that the petitioner's application under section 36(2) of the B. P. T. Act is on the ground that the sanction under section 36(1) was obtained by respondent no.1 by fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore, the order is liable to be revoked. 4. Respondent no.2 has filed a reply affidavit opposing 3 admission of the petition and in paragraph 6 thereof reproduced the relevant excerpts from pleadings verbatim in Writ Petition No.2662 of 2001 to demonstrate that the ground of fraud and misrepresentation was also raised in the earlier round of litigation wherein the sanction under section 36(1) was under challenge. I have perused the reply affidavit. It is clear that the contention of fraud and misrepresentation was, inter alia, raised in the earlier Writ Petition No.2662 of 2001 contending that the order under section 36(1) was not in the interest of the trust. It is against this backdrop, the Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly rejected the application filed under section 36 (2) of the B.P.T Act for the reasons recorded in the order and more particularly the reasons recorded in paragraphs 9,10 and 11 of the Judgment dated 31.1.2009. For the selfsame reasons I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in exercise of extremely limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 4