IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7344 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7344 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 7344 OF 2008 Dr.Sarang V. Joshi & another. ... Petitioners. V/s. Shri A.I.S.Chima, The Principal District Judge, Pune & another. ... Respondents. A.Y.Sakhare, senior counsel with N.P.Deshpande for the petitioners. M.S.Bhandari i/b. Ms.Pranjali Bhandari for respondent No.2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 14th January 2009. DATED: 14th January 2009. DATED: 14th January 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Perused petition. 2. This petition filed under section 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the administrative order of the learned District Judge, Pune dated 31st August, 2008. The petitioners are seeking extra tenure of 18 months to act as trustees of the Trust i.e. for a period for which they were kept out of the office of the Trustees (i.e. between 9th August, 2006 till 5th February, 2008) contending that they were illegally prevented from discharging their duties as trustees. 3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioners are the ex-trustees of the Trust known as Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Trust, Alandi. The petitioners were appointed as trustees on 31st August, 2001 for a period of seven years. The period of seven years expired on 31st August, 2008. Before expiry of their term, they were removed as trustees by order dated 9th August, 2006. The petitioners applied for being reappointed as trustees since they were illegally removed. This request of the petitioners was turned down. Now, their normal tenure which they were supposed to have enjoyed, has come to an end. Reappointment on merits was refused with which no fault can be found. Under these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners that they should be reinstated and that they should be granted further extension for further period of 18 months since they were kept away from the office of the Trust, cannot be accepted. 4. Having examined the impugned order in the light of various documents and the orders passed by this Court from time to time, the view taken by the learned District Judge, Pune is a reasonable and possible view. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)