1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4951/2009 Shankarrao G.Bhute and another VERSUS Hiraram J. Khobragtade and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30 , 2009 . Heard Advocate Shri Abhyankar, for the petitioner, Advocate Shri Bhandarkar, for Respondent No.1 and Shri Fulzele, learned AGP, for respondent No. 2. 2 Challenge is to the order dated 4.8.2009 passed below Exh. 43 by Deputy Charity Commissioner whereby he has recalled the order dated 8th May, 2009, passed earlier. 3 It appears that the change report No. 496 of 94 filed by present respondent No.1 was rejected on 2.3.2009 and District Judge-9, Nagpur, was considering the challenge in that respect. While considering grant of interim relief on 8th May, 2009, after hearing all 2 concerned, said District Judge-9 passed order and directed parties to maintain status quo in respect of position as on 2.3.2009 i.e. passing of order by Joint Charity Commissioner till the decision of appeal. 4 Petitioners states that they are not aggrieved by this direction, however, they are aggrieved by its implementation. According to the learned counsel, the status-quo as on 2.3.2009 means the position after passing of order on that day. He states that change report was rejected on the said date and therefore, the respondent no. 1 could not have continued in Schedule- I and names of petitioners ought to have been added on that schedule immediately on2.3.2009 itself after the order was passed. According to him, brining of names of petitioner on record on 10.3.2009 therefore is not very relevant and hence order dated 4.8.2009, recalling the order dated 10.3.2009 is contrary to the direction issued by District Judge-9. 5 The learned AGP as also Advocate Shri Bhandarkar support the impugned order. They states that the status quo order as on 2.3.2009 clearly means the status quo prevailing prior to passing of that order on the said date. 3 6 After hearing parties, I found that it is not in dispute that till 2.3.2009 body of Respondent no.1 was managing the affairs of the trust. Because of order dated 10.3.2009, names of the petitioners were added to Schedule-I and they started administering the trust. The order of District Judge-9 is therefore clear and direction is to maintain status quo prevailing on 2.3.2009, the direction need to be understood in the background of the fact that the challenge was to order dated 2.3.2009 before him. It is, therefore, obvious that the position prevailing on 2.3.2009 i.e. prior to impugned order was directed to be maintained by the said order. 7 In view of this position, the respondent NO.2 has correctly recalled the subsequent order dated 10.3.2009 and the impugned order dated 4.8.2009 therefore does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit