1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.404 of 2009 [Bahuddeishiya Shikshan Sanstha, Bhandara & ors. Vs. Rameshwar G. Bhiwgade & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Adv., for respondent no.1, 3 and 5. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5. Mrs. Wasnik, AGP for respondent no.7. ----- CORAM : S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 10th February, 2009. Heard Mr. Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1,3 and 5, Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2,4 and 5 and Mrs. Wasnik, learned AGP for respondent no.7. The petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 25th November, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhandara in Regular [BPT] Appeal No. 3 of 2008 refusing to stay the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. Pursuant to the order dated 2nd February, 2009, parties have filed their affidavits. 2 Petitioners' affidavit is to the effect that they were controlling the affairs of the Trust from 15th April, 2007, and even after the order of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner dated 23rd July, 2007 rejecting the Change Report, till 10th February, 2009, i.e., today. The respondents' affidavit is to the effect that they are managing the affairs of the Trust since 25th November, 2008, i.e., after the order of Joint Charity Commissioner, which was, in fact, allegedly executed. The learned District Judge-1, Bhandara, in his order dated 12th January, 2009 has observed that the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner has already been executed and implemented by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Bhandara, and, therefore, he refused to grant interim stay during pendency of the appeal. As already stated above, this order has been challenged in this Writ Petition. During the course of the arguments, it was pointed out that the petitioner no.1 is facing a criminal prosecution for defalcation. The petitioner no.2 is in service, whereas the petitioner no.4 is retired from Govt. service. So also, it was pointed out that the respondent no.1 is removed by the members of the Society, whereas the respondent no.2 is retired from Education Department. Similarly, the respondent no.3 is in the employment of a Bank. The respondent no.4 is the daughter of respondent no.1. So also, the respondent no.5 is 3 the wife of respondent no.1, and respondent no.6 is a retired lady. As the interim order refusing to stay the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner is challenged, in my opinion, this Writ Petition can be disposed of by asking the District Judge- 2 to dispose of Appeal No. 5 of 2008 as early as possible, and in any case within a period of three months from today. He can also be directed to dispose of all the relevant and connected matters within this period, as the parties agree to co-operate. As regards the interim arrangement, suffice it to say that the respondents are presently managing the Trust from 25th November, 2008 in pursuance of the order of Joint Charity Commissioner, though, according to the petitioners, the same is only because of recording of their names in Schedule-I of the Trust with the office of Charity Commissioner. It is necessary to note that both the petitioners and respondents are trying to have their control on the administration of the Trust. In these circumstances, only one party can be allowed to be in the control and administration of the Trust. Though may be rightly or wrongly, presently, the names of respondents are recorded in Schedule-I of the Trust record and, therefore, they would be entitled for management of the Trust as an interim arrangement. However, considering the circumstances of the case, they are directed not 4 take any policy decision, except with the prior permission of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner for its implementation, which shall be decided by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, or Deputy Charity Commissioner, as the case may be, after giving a notice to petitioners and upon hearing them. The parties, both the petitioners and respondents, shall be entitled to move the District Judge-I for any appropriate relief as may be necessary in future during pendency of the appeals of the parties. It is made clear that the above observations shall not any way influence the learned District Judge while deciding the appeals or matters between the parties on their own merits. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Judge |Hedau| 5