1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4275 of 2009 1.Arjun Tatya Gavli & anr. .. .. Petitioners v/s. 1.Madhav Ramrao Birajdar & ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for Petitioners. Mr.Ajay a. Joshi for Res.Nos.1 to 3 & 8 to 10 Mrs.Neha Bhide, AGP for Res.No.12. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 13th January, 2010 P.C. : 1.Heard both sides. 2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.There is in effect no lis between the parties. The Petitioners represent one group of trustees. The Respondents represent another group of trustees. There are at present 11 trustees. The Settlement Deed is stated to be of about 1950. The Trust has been administered under the provisions of that Deed. Thereafter an Application for amendment of the Scheme was filed being Application No.13 of 1993. It is conceded by both the Counsel that it is essentially for 2 increase in the number of trustees from 11 to 15. That increase has to be made as per the Consent Terms filed by the parties in the First Appeal filed from an order passed in Application No.13 of 1993 and the Appeal therefrom on 29th April 2008. Under that order, the Charity Commissioner has to decide the number of 4 additional trustees to be appointed. The Respondents have filed their Application for administration of the Trust as per the Scheme under Application No.13 of 1993. 4.It does not matter whether the Scheme is technically not yet granted. The administration would be for the affairs of the Trust which is not a part of Application No.13 of 1993. The administration of the Trust would have to continue even pending the decision of the Charity Commissioner for appointment of additional 4 trustees or otherwise. Hence the prayer is actually innocuous. The administration would go on as before. It is only clarified that both the Counsel agree that the administration of the Trust must go on giving both the parties the rights available under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 5.With this clarification, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)