1 Bsb IN THE HGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4944 OF 2009 Prashant K. Mehta ... Petitioner v/s Chetan Prabodh Mehta & ors. ... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4945 OF 2009 Kishor K. Mehta ... Petitioner v/s Chetan Prabhodh Mehta & ors. ... Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4946 OF 2009 Rajiv K. Mehta ... Petitioner v/s Chetan Prabodh Mehta & ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.R.Dhond a/w Rohan Kelkar i/by M/s.Hariani & Co. for the petitioner in all petitions. MMr.C.U.Singh a/w Mr.Prateek Seksaria, Mr.Manish Desai, Mr.D.K.Singh, Mr.Jay Kansara & Mr.Thomas T.K. i/by Paras 2 Kuhad & Associates for the respondent No.1 in all petitions. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3 and 4 in all petitions. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitions have been filed against the order passed on 23.4.2009. The petitioners had sought intervention in the application filed under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1959, against the respondent No.2 in all these petitions. In my view, no fault can be found with the order impugned in these petitions. The Charity Commissioner has rightly held that the intervention application need not be allowed since the Application No.15 of 2008 has been preferred for removal of respondent No.2 and not the petitioners. Apart from this, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they would be bound by any observations made by the Joint Charity Commissioner while disposed of the Application No.15 of 2008 without being parties, has been adequately dealt with by the Joint Charity Commissioner. 3 2. The petitioners dispute the findings recorded in the impugned order in para 12 that, admittedly, at present, none of the intervenors are trustees on record. This is a question of fact which the petitioner can establsh in appropriate proceedings. 3. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere in the matter. 4. Writ petitions rejected. .....