1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1482/2010 Adv. Shri Bhaskar S. Kulkarni and others Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R. L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Thakre, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. A. M. Jaltare, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER 2010. 1] Heard Advocate Khapre for the petitioners, AGP Thakre for respondent no.1 and Advocate Jaltare for respondents 2 to 4. 2] Advocate Khapre has invited attention to Civil Application W No.1631/2010 to contend that the petitioner no.8 is also inducted in 2005 and therefore, charges could not have been framed against him. 3] This Court has while issuing notice in the matter on 31st March 2010 restricted it to petitioner nos.7, 9 and 10. In view of this position, the matter is considered in the light of grievance made by the petitioners 7 to 10. 4] Advocate Khapre has stated that petitioner no.7 came to be inducted on 30.4.2005, the petitioner no.8 on 12.2.2005, petitioner no.9 on 13.9.2007 and petitioner no.10 2 on 12.11.2007. According to him, the charges for misconducts (alleged) committed prior to the said period could not have been framed against these petitioners. The second contention is in any case the alleged defaults must be shown to be persistent. 5] Advocate Jaltare has contended that relevant documents are already placed on record and charges have been framed after perusal of these documents. He has, however, stated that as the charges have only been framed, it was not necessary to record any reasons. 6] After hearing respective counsel, I am satisfied that the charges could not have been framed for the period during which the petitioner nos. 7 to 10 before this Court had no control over the affairs of the public trust. The aspect is not looked into by respondent no.1 Joint Charity Commissioner. 7] Hence, only in relation to the petitioners 7 to 10, respondent no. 1 is directed to look into the material produced to find out whether the alleged defaults can be co-related with the petitioners in any way. 8] Respondent no.1 shall undertake necessary scrutiny for the said purpose after hearing respective counsel and shall frame fresh/modify charges as he deems fit. 3 With the above direction, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.