1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 2011 (Shri Sant Gadgebaba Janmabhumi Smarak Samiti vs. Dy. Director of Education, Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 06, 2011. Heard Shri Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Parihar, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The rival change reports submitted by the petitioner and group of Respondent No. 3 are stated to be pending. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that the change report submitted by the petitioner is rejected. It is not necessary for this Court to go into all these because appropriate orders against the management of the School/ Trust can be passed by the authorities functioning under the Bombay Public Trust Act, after giving all concerned requisite opportunity. The direction given by the Deputy Director in the impugned order on 31.12.2010, particularly operative part clause (A) asking the Education Officer to recognize and accept the resolutions of body in Schedule I only, therefore, cannot be accepted to be valid at least 2 at this stage. With liberty to both the parties to approach the Competent Authority under Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in this respect, we set aside that clause. Insofar as operative part clause (C) is concerned, Respondent No. 3 has made a grievance that the petitioner is trying to protect the Head Master. By clause (C), the Deputy Director has ordered the Education Officer (Secondary) to hold enquiry and if in that enquiry any irregularities committed by said Head Master/ other staff are revealed, to direct the Society of the School to take action against the Head Master/ such employees. Respondent No. 3 has placed before us a copy of enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Education Officer. Again we do not find it necessary to record any finding in this respect. When the Deputy Director of Education found that no steps were being taken, his step of asking the Education Officer to hold preliminary enquiry and then directing that Education Officer to ask the management to take appropriate disciplinary measures, is contrary to spirit of Section 4A of the Act in present facts. We, therefore, direct Respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders under Section 4A of the Act to hold enquiry into the irregularities committed by the Head Master/ other employees either himself or through Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati, i.e. Respondent No. 2 before this Court. These orders shall be passed by 3 him after giving the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 an opportunity of hearing within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner and Respondent No. 3 to appear before Respondent No. 1 on 21st September 2011 and abide by further instructions in the matter. Subject to this, writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.