-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3922 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 3922 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 3922 OF 2007 Shri Vilas Ramchandra Ghumare .. Petitioner. V/s. 1. Shri Tukaram Shankar Chavan & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr.G.S.Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr.Shrishaail Sakhare for the Respondent Nos.1,4 to 7, 11,12 & 14. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for the Respondent No.15. --- CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- . By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur in Inquiry Application No. 56 of 2001 is under challenge. That order was passed below Exh. 30. 2. Exh. 30 is the application which has been preferred by the present petitioner. It is prayed that since the proceedings ( the Enquiry Application No 56/2001) are at the instance of the first Respondent they be dropped as the respondent is not available to -: 2 :- lead evidence. The first respondent had filed the application invoking the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner under section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The specific case of the petitioner and more particularly, i.e. the opponent No.2 is that the application under section 41D was filed in the year, 2000 at Pune. Thereafter, it was transferred to Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner at Latur. However, the petitioner complains that the first respondent has remained absent throughout. He has not come forward to prove the allegations in the application. On the other hand, his Advocate had tendered a pursis at Exh. 28, wherein it is the specific case that the first respondent has not given any instruction to proceed in the matter. In such circumstances, the matter requires to be dropped. The proceedings, therefore, should be dismissed, is the request. That application was filed in time but the Joint Charity Commissioner has not passed any order thereon. Hence, this petition. 3. The petition complains that the Joint Charity Commissioner has some where during the course of the proceedings observed that the application No. 56 of 2001 is a suo moto proceeding. However, both sides to the matter have not disputed that it is an application preferred by the first respondent. -: 3 :- 4. After hearing both sides, it is clarified that the Enquiry Application No. 56/2001 shall be treated as the application /proceedings initiated by the first respondent and will be dealt with accordingly. Now as far as the question of opportunity to the respondents to prosecute the enquiry application No.56/2001 is concerned, Mr. Sakhare invited my attention to the affidavit filed in reply to the present petition. In para 6 of the petition, the first respondent states that he is 78 years old and remains ill since 2003. He was advised not to undertake long journey. He states that it is incorrect to say that any instructions were given by him to withdraw the matter or drop the proceedings. In fact, the Advocate was not interested in proceeding with the matter. Be that as it may, now, Mr. Sakhare and Mr.Godbole pray for issuing appropriate directions to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur. Both sides agree that the application shall be treated as initiated by the first respondent and will be dealt with as such. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that if the first respondent appears before the Joint Charity Commissioner on 7th of February, 2008 at 11 a.m., the Joint Charity Commissioner to proceed with the matter on merits and decide in accordance with law. Needless to say that it -: 4 :- will be for the Joint Charity Commissioner to secure presence of the parties. If the first respondent fails to appear on the date and time stipulated in this order, the Joint Charity Commissioner would be at liberty to dismiss the Application No. 56 of 2001 without any further reference to this court. Any application for restoration or recalling the order thereafter will not be entertained. The writ petition is dismissed with the above clarification and direction. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) .....