vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.355 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.355 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.355 OF 2008 Pandurang Chalu Patil & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Tukaram K. Kolekar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.S. Pakale for Petitioners Mr.V.P. Sawant for Respondent No.1 Mr.V.M. Thoarat for Resp. Nos.2 and 3 Mr.S.N. Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 9, 2009 APRIL 9, 2009 APRIL 9, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur dated 30.6.2007. The Petitioners filed an application u/s 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the Joint Charity Commissioner who by the impugned order has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners. The Joint Charity Commissioner has held that there was no material on record to indicate that the Petitioners were "persons interested" in the trust. He has further concluded that the petitioners had not impleaded the newly elected body as respondent to the application and, therefore, the application was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Joint Charity Commissioner further held that the Petitioners were not able to substantiate their allegations against Respondent Nos.1 : 2 : and 2 regarding mismanagement of the Trust. 2. Admittedly, the Petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.2426 of 2003 challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Ghadhinglaj on 3.3.2003. That order confirmed the interlocutory order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghadhinglaj, District Kolhapur rejecting the petitioner’s application for an interim injunction restraining Respondent Nos.3 to 8 in that petition from acting as trustees of the public trust known as Shikshan Samiti Kasaba Nesari i.e. respondent No.3 herein. While rejecting the petition, this court has observed that the petitioners were elected in the year 1985 as trustees, after which no elections were held, except when a reappointment of the trustees was made on 8.10.1999. It was further observed that in view of the fact of the term of office of the trustees was only for three years, the petitioners had ceased to be trustees after 1988. 3. The first question which arises in the present petition is whether the petitioner had a locus to maintain the application u/s 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The powers of the Charity Commissioner under Section 41D can be exercised either on an application of a trustee or any person interested in the trust or on a receipt of a report u/s 41B or suo moto. The expression : 3 : "person having interest" has been defined u/s 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Clause (e) is relevant for our purpose. It stipulates that "any person interested" in the case of a public trust, other than those mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), must be a trustee or beneficiary. The definition of "any person interested" is an inclusive definition. However, in the present case, it is necessary to ascertain whether the petitioners could at all be considered as "persons interested", i.e. whether they are either trustees or beneficiaries or had some specific interest in the trust. 4. The petitioners have stated in para 1 of the writ petition that they are members of the Respondent No.3 trust. In para 3, they have stated that they are trustees of the trust and, therefore, are interested persons in the trust. However, by the order passed in Writ Petition No.2426 of 2003, this Court has held that the petitioners are no longer trustees and that they had no right to continue as trustees. Thus, the contention of the petitioners being interested persons in view of their status as trustees cannot be accepted. 5. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that they continue as members of the trust and, therefore, were "persons interested". However, the : 4 : petitioners have not substantiated this fact before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners continue to pay membership subscriptions by depositing the same in the bank account of the Trust, they continued to be members of the Trust. However, there is no material on record to indicate that receipts were issued to the petitioners for this subscription, indicating that they continued to be members. Thus, the petitioners have not shown that they are persons interested in the Trust. The last contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners on this issue was that the Petitioners are persons interested because they reside in the vicinity of the Trust. This submission is without merit and must be rejected. 5. The acts which the petitioners complained of have allegedly occurred during the period from 1996 to 1999 and thereafter. The application u/s 41 D has been filed in the year 2003, without any reasons being set out as to why it was not filed immediately after the alleged acts of mismanagement had occurred. Although there is no time stipulated in under section 41D within which an application can be preferred it obviously has to be filed within a reasonable time of the commission of the acts of mismanagement. Seven years in my view, would certainly not be a reasonable time. : 5 : 6. Petition rejected.