1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8668 OF 2010 Babasaheb s/o Apparao Akat and another ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Vaijnathrao s/o Yadavrao Akat and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioners Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25th October, 2010 PER COURT : 1. An interlocutory order passed by the District Court, refusing to grant stay in the proceedings of appeal is subjected to challenge in this petition at the instance of petitioner. In fact the controversy involved in the mater is set at rest in pursuance of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18811 of 2007, decided on 5.5.2009. The matter before the Apex Court was in respect of the change occurred in the year 2001. It is not necessary to go into the factual details of the mater. However, certain observations made by the Apex Court while dealing with the matter are required to be quoted. The Apex Court observed in paragraph Nos.19, 20, 22 and 24 as under : 2 “19. However, the purpose and object for which such an enquiry was directed to be held, in our opinion, was no longer available, keeping in view the fact that even fresh election had taken place in the year 2006. 20. The tenure of the Managing Committee had come to an end by efflux of time. Change report in respect of the registers for achieving the said purpose was required to be filed for satisfying the requirement of law, although no effective order could be passed thereupon. It is one thing to say that the change report sought to be effected in respect of the names of the Members of the Managing Committee and/or its President lost its object but it is another thing to say that any transaction which had been entered into may still be subject to an enquiry. 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Furthermore in view of the subsequent events which had taken place, namely holding of the election in the year 2006, we are of the opinion that he cannot be said to have committed an error in passing the said order. Even respondent No.1 should not have been allowed to prefer an appeal. Appeal having been dismissed by the Joint Charity Commissioner no further appeal, at his instance, before the High Court should have been entertained. 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. Although ordinarily we would have remanded the matter back to the High Court, we clarify that we have exercised our jurisdiction under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case so as to do complete justice between the parties as also in view of the fact that any further litigation would be unnecessary since no actual relief can be granted to any of the parties thereto in this case.” 2. The District Court, while disposing of the appeal, shall have to bear in mind the observations made by the Apex Court quoted above. In fact, in my opinion, the controversy in respect of the change occurred in the year 2001, which was subjected to challenge in the proceedings initiated before the Assistant charity Commissioner, which had reached up to the 3 Apex Court, has been set at rest in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3267/2009. In fact the appeal arising out of the challenge raised to the change occurred in the year 2001 is rendered infructuous as has been observed by the Apex Court that further change has taken place in the year 2003 and the change reports are pending in that regard before the competent authorities. The parties have to get their rights, entitlement decided in the pending proceedings. The District Court is expected to take into account the subsequent developments as well as the observations made by the Apex Court while dealing with the Civil Appeal and shall have to decide the pending appeal accordingly. At this stage, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. The District Court, however, is directed to dispose of the pending appeal within three months from today. R.M. BORDE JUDGE fmp/wp8668.10