1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.300 of 2008 In Writ Petition No.1832 of 2008 (Decided) [Nanuram Mohanlal Varma and another .vrs. Ashok Ramchandrarao More and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. N.M. Varma, the appellants - in person, Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 3. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2008 1. Heard appellant no.1 in person and the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 3. 2. On 11.1.2008 Five Trustees of Vidarbha Kabaddi Association, Nagpur moved an application under Section 41(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for direction to hold election of the New Managing Committee as per the modified Constitution of the Trust. Appellant no.1 before us is one of the applicants being applicant no.3. By order dated 2 18.3.2008 the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur appointed Shri W.A. Dahiwade, Inspector of Public Trusts Registration Office as Chief Election Officer and Shri Subhash N. Pise and Shri N.M. Varma (appellant no.1 before us) as Members of the Election Committee and directed to hold election. The said order was challenged by three petitioners in Writ Petition No.1832 of 2008. Taking into consideration the opinions of the counsel for the rival parties, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 13.8.2008, partly allowed the Writ Petition; confirmed the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur so far as regards direction to hold election and modified the said order to the effect that instead of formulating Election Committee consisting of three members, the Deputy Charity Commissioner was directed to appoint a competent officer from his office to hold election of the said Trust. 3. The appellant (who was one of the applicants in the application dated 11.1.2008) has challenged the said order. We are unable to understand as to how the present appellants can challenge the said order particularly when 3 it was passed after taking into consideration the opinions of the counsel for rival parties. In our view, no prejudice is likely to be caused to any of the parties, if the order of the learned Single Judge is implemented. Thus, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 4. The appellant prays for staying this order to enable him to challenge it before appropriate Court. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer. The same is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande