skt/- 1 31.wp.8342.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8342 OF 2009 Ashok Panditrao Jadhav & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Mahadev Dyanu Salunkhe & Anr. ... Respondents ...... Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the petitioners. Mr.Mahendra Deshmukh h/f. Mr.Vikas M. Mali for respondent no.1. Mrs. Neha Palshikar Bhide, AGP for respondent no.2. ...... CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 29th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that the matter may be heard at this stage itself. Hence, by consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition is directed against order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli allowing respondent nos.1’s application for issuing notice to an Inspector of his office for remaining present at the enquiry. It was respondent no.1’s contention that the reports filed by the Inspector were not correct, one sided and causing injustice to skt/- 2 31.wp.8342.09.sxw the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that the report in itself, cannot be taken as a gospel truth and in fact on receipt of a report, the Charity Commissioner has to proceed to hold an enquiry in the prescribed manner, which manner is prescribed in Rule 25 of the Bombay Public Trust Rules. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that there is a Circular issued by the Charity Commissioner which has been referred to in the impugned order at paragraph No. 8. Though the Circular is not before me, what has been extracted in the impugned order shows that the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai had pointed out possibly to the officers in the Charity Organization that report of the Inspector, or the statements recorded, could not be treated as substantive evidence. It has been further stated, possibly in the Circular, that as regards the notes of inspection of the site, the same could be taken in evidence and before doing so, it would be necessary to examine the Inspector on oath and as regards the personal observations of the Inspector, the skt/- 3 31.wp.8342.09.sxw Inspector could be called as a witness. Calling Inspector as a witness is one thing and asking the Inspector to remain present at the enquiry is another thing. If there are any personal observations of the Inspector, they could be shown to be wrong by the respondent tendering proper evidence before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, there should be no occasion for calling the Inspector to prove any facts since the Inspector is unlikely to have any personal knowledge of any facts pertaining to the affairs of the Trust. 4. In view of this, the impugned order cannot at all be sustained. It is, therefore, quashed and set aside. [ R.C.CHAVAN, J. ]