1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.9022 of 2007 Jitendra Damodar Joshi & ors. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.P.R.Kadam with Mr.M.M.Vaidya for petitioners. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for resp.nos. 1 and 2. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel with Mr.P.S.Dani for resp.nos.3, 4, 5 and 7. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 7, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. They were issued notices on 2/4/2006 and 7/4/2006 by the Trust. They sought to challenge these notices by filing application before the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ("the Act" for short) and in the said application the Trust appeared and filed an application at Exhibit 25 pointing out that the application filed under Section 41-D against the notices was not maintainable. The Joint Charity Commissioner by his order dated 3/10/2007 held that the application was not maintainable. 2 . The petitioners then approached the District Court by filing Misc.Application No.46 of 2007 and by the impugned judgment and order dated 31/10/2007 the said application has been dismissed. . The learned District Judge-I referred to the draft Rules as per the draft scheme and the order passed by this Court in the form of Consent Terms and held that the application filed by the petitioners was rightly held to be not maintainable under Section 41-D of the Act. At the same time the District Court also referred to the order passed by this Court on 20/10/2005 and observed that the petitioners’ grievance, if any, could not be examined beyond the scheme of the Rules and the Consent Terms. . The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that when the order was passed by this Court on 20/10/2005 by way of Consent Terms, the petitioners were not party to the same i.e. Writ Petition No.2720 of 2005 and the terms of the scheme approved by the District Court were unilaterally changed. If that be so, the petitioners’ remedy may be somewhere else, but surely they could not raise all these issues by filing an application under 3 Section 41-D of the Act and, prima facie, the notices issued were not contrary to the Consent Terms. . Hence it cannot be said that the Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the District Judge committed errors apparent on the face of the record or the order passed was perverse so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition stands rejected summarily. . This order does not come in the way of the petitioners to approach this Court by other proceedings or in case such other proceedings have been filed, they will have to be decided on on their own merits. (B.H.MARL