1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.441 of 2008 (Dr. Vasantrao Ajabrao Deshmukh v. Shri Sheshrao Sahabrao Dhengele and others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for R- 1 and 2. AGP for R- 3. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 28th July, 2008 1. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in this petition : (1) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction and modify the order passed by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner Akola, in Inquiry No.1098 of 2007, decided on 15-11-2007, in so far it is directed that the election should be held within three months, and the finding is given that it could not be held that the petitioner can represent himself as President of the Trust. The said direction and finding may be quashed and set aside; (2) Declare that the finding that petitioner is not entitled to 2 represent as President and the direction regarding holding of election is ultra vires the powers of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, and is illegal and void; (3) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction interim for staying the effect and operation of the Direction and finding given by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner Akola in Enquiry No.1098/2007 directing the holding of election, during the pendency of present proceeding, and the finding given by the authority holding that the petitioner is not entitled to represent as a President of Society, during the pendency of the present proceeding. 2. The petitioner has also filed a pursis, which reads as under : The application under Sec.41-A filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner was held not maintainable. The said order is hence not challenged. The impugned order challenged pertains to Hon'ble Single Judge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that so far as holding of election is concerned, the petitioner has no objection and in fact the petitioner has already held the election. Therefore, according to him, there is no challenge to the direction in the impugned order for holding election and, therefore, it could not be said that any order made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is being challenged in this petition and, therefore, the petition would lie before a Single Judge. According to the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner, all that he is aggrieved with is the observation of the Assistant Charity Commissioner that the petitioner/non-applicant cannot represent himself as President of the Trust, in face of the finding of the Assistant Charity Commissioner that the application itself was not tenable. 4. After finding that the application was not tenable, the Assistant Charity Commissioner could not have adjudicated upon the status of the petitioner. All the same, since the Assistant Charity Commissioner has in fact rejected the application as not maintainable, the observation could not be read as an order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. But the Assistant Charity Commissioner has also directed holding of election. This order is dated 15-11-2007, and after this date, admittedly no election has been held. If the petitioner is aggrieved by this direction, he has to file an appropriate petition, which would like before the Division Bench and not before the Single Bench. 5. The petition is, therefore, disposed of leaving such remedies as may be available to the petitioner open. JUDGE Lanjewar