1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.383 OF 2010 Kishor Kirtilal Mehta ...Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.462 OF 2010 Mrs.Charu K. Mehta ...Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Dinesh Purandare with Mr. Rohan Kelkar with Mr. Nagendra Dube i/b. Mulla & Mulla CBC Advocates for the Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions Mr. S.N. Bhosle, A.G.P for Respondents 1 and 3 both the Writ Petitions Mr.Dinyar Madon, Sr. Counsel along with Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Kunal Vijani, Mr.Pranaya Goyal Advocates i/b. M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co., for Respondent No.2 in both the Writ Petitions CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard all the parties. 2 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Petitioners challenge the order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Region dated 18th November 2009. The order has rejected the application filed by the Petitioners with regard to the proceeding of the trial for which directions have already been passed by this Court since 27th February 2009. The learned Charity Commissioner has directed the Petitioners to file their affidavit of examination-in-chief since 18th November 2009. 4. That affidavit is not filed on the footing that in one of the 5 matters affidavit of examination-in-chief is filed. The Petitioners insist that they be cross examined in that matter after which they would file affidavit of examination-in-chief in the next matter and so on. 5. The change reports relate to the same Trust. The lis is between the same parties. It has been directed to be disposed off by one Assistant Charity Commissioner and he has been directed to pass the final order in all the applications on the same date. The matters are, therefore, not to be heard one after the other. They are to be taken up for hearing together. 6. The parties have in the past carried out pre-trial formalities including filing the documents and admission and denial of documents all together. As far back as on 2nd September 2009 the parties were directed to file their affidavit of examination-in-chief in all the matters. 3 7. The Petitioners require to lead oral evidence. Hence the Petitioners must file their affidavits of examination-in-chief in all the matters. That has not been filed. 8. The Petition has been expedited. They have been directed to be disposed off before 30th September 2009. Despite that and even after the period granted by this Court, application was made showing why affidavit of examination-in-chief in other matters should not be filed before cross examination in the first matter was complete. 9. The order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner rejecting that application is correct. Since affidavit of examination-in-chief to be filed, just as the other pretrial formalities, these are required to be filed in all the matters together. They have not been filed. They shall be filed as directed. 10.Writ Petition is completely devoid of merits. It is rejected. 11.Rule discharged. 12.The Petitioners shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- in both the Writ Petitions to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)