1 wp 9794.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9794 OF 2011 Shankar Gurlingappa Zade and others .. Petitioners Versus Umrao Ambadas Naikwade and another .. Respondents Shri S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners were appointed as fit persons to administer and manage the trust. Vide the impugned order the names of the petitioners are deleted from Schedule I. The learned counsel submits that earlier vide order dated 21.09.2007 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the names of the petitioners were included in Schedule I, as such the same could not have been ordered to be deleted. The learned counsel further contends that the said order is passed on an application by incompetent person. The said person who has 2 wp 9794.11 filed the application is already suspended and orders are passed that he would never be the trustee or office bearer in the future. The learned counsel further contends that the order is stigmatic in a way it states that the petitioners would misuse their office and represent themselves as trustees. On all these counts the learned counsel submits that the order is bad in law. 2. The Joint Charity Commissioner while passing the impugned order has relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Zitru Lahanuji Lonare Vs. Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh reported in 2008(6) All M. R. 229 and held that the fit persons cannot be said to be trustees of the trust. As the fit persons cannot be said to be the trustees, their names need not be recorded in the Schedule I. But there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have misused their office as fit persons and have represented themselves as trustees. The said order is not stigmatic, but in view of the fact that they cannot be equated as trustees. 3. No error is committed by the Joint Charity Commissioner while passing the impugned order. As such, no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction of this Court 3 wp 9794.11 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is disposed of, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11