1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5063 OF 2009 (Bhagwan Dinbaji Jambhule & Ors. vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & 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, J. NOVEMBER 23, 2009. Heard Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner has directed scheme to be filed within six months. The petitioner filed scheme accordingly. Group of respondents filed it after six months. The petitioners raised objection and contended that as scheme was filed beyond period of six months, the same could not have been looked into. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur, has kept that objection and application raising it for consideration along with merits of the controversy. Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India vs. Ganga Enterprises and Anr., reported at (2003) 7 SCC 410, contends that objection raised by the petitioners was going to the root of the matter, its postponement or its consideration along with merits is indirectly defeating 2 the objection itself. He has invited attention to the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in Application No. 21 of 2008 on 16.08.2008 to urge that the scheme filed by the respondents is held to be filed after six months by said authority also. The fact that schemes were permitted to be filed within six months is not in dispute. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, thereafter has to consider those schemes in accordance with law and the competent authority is duty bound to finalise it after hearing of parties. The respondents are also, therefore, entitled to be heard at that stage. Because of this position, the Assistant Charity Commissioner appears to have kept point of limitation raised by the petitioners open for consideration at the stage of final hearing. The observations by the Joint Charity Commissioner in para 4 of his order dated 16.08.2008 cannot be restricted to the act of filing of scheme by the petitioners only. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned above states that when objection was about the maintainability of writ petition, it ought to have been decided first by the High Court. There matter was arising out of contract and after adjudication of that objection, writ petition would not have survived. Here, the scheme filed by the petitioners will be required to be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority. The judgment has, therefore, no application. 3 No case is made out warranting any interference in writ petition at this stage. Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.