1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2047 OF 2009 Shaikh Amir Shaikh Sultan Age : 54 years, Occ : At present Nil, R/o Maoina Nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. Naziruddin Samashoddin Age : 67 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o C/o Dr.Zakir Hussain D.Ed. College, Dr.Zakir Hussain Nagar, Parbhani, Dist.Parbhani. 2. Mazarali Khan Raheman Khan Age : 64 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o Rahat Hospital, Darga Road, Parbhani, Dist.Parbhani. 3. Syed Ahmad Hashami Age : 60 years, Occ : Business, R/o Roshan Khan Mohalla, Near Gumbaj, Parbhani, Dist.Parbhani. 4. Matin Ahmed Khan Mazid Khan Age : 68 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o Shah Inayat Mohalla, Parbhani, Dist.Parbhani. 5. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Office of Joint Charity Commissioner, Adalat Road, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. (Respondent no.5 to be served through G.P. High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ..Respondents 2 ......... Mr.Milind Joshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B. Tele, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G. P. for respondent no.5. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 30th June, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Charity Commissioner, whereby request of the petitioner to suspend the respondent nos.1 to 4, who are the trustees of Parbhani Education Society, Parbhani is rejected. It appears that enquiry no.740/2005 is going on and charges have been framed against the respondent nos.1 to 4 along with other two trustees. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent nos.1 to 4 have acted against the interest of the trust, and therefore, they may be removed. The learned Charity Commissioner came to the conclusion that the restrictions are already put on functioning of other two trustees as per the order of the High Court in Second Appeal No.824/2006. The petitioner can not have any legal right to insist that the respondent nos.1 to 4 shall be suspended by the Charity Commissioner. Perusal of Section 41D would show that the Charity Commissioner has discretion to exercise the powers to suspend the trustee, if the 3 charges have been framed on the basis of the available material and it is found expedient and in the interest of trust to pass order of suspension against the trustee. Perusal of sub section (3) of Section 41D would make it amply clear that the Charity Commissioner "may" place the trustee under suspension during the pendency of enquiry into the charges framed against him. The discretion available to the Charity Commissioner can not be regarded as legal obligation imposed by law and as such, the petitioner has right to seek suspension of the trustees. However, during the pendency of the enquiry, the Charity Commissioner may form any particular opinion and may take appropriate action for suspension, if he is satisfied that grounds available under Section 41D(1)(a) to (f) either any of them is/are available. The Petition is, therefore, disposed of. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp2047.09