vsa 1 RPWST12819_2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (stamp) No. 12819 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7187 OF 2009 Bharat Ramchandra Parchandrao & Ors. ...Petitioners v/s. Anil Manohar Abhangrao & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.S. Talkute for the Petitioners Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : 13 th December, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioners. The Review Petitioners are the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition preferred by the Respondents. It is his contention that in pending revision application, on 26 th March, 2010 the Joint Charity Commissioner had stayed the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner accepting a change-report under which the 1 st & 2 nd Respondents were claiming to act as trustees. He submitted that the said fact was not disclosed to this Court at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition due to communication gap between the Review Petitioners and their Advocate. He stated that after filing of the Review Petition, the Revision Application has been allowed and the change report has been rejected. He pointed out that now there is an Order dated 31 st October, 2011 passed u/s. 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. He pointed out that under the said order certain persons including Respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been removed as trustees and certain persons have been appointed as fit persons to act as trustees till the vsa 2 RPWST12819_2011 new trustees are appointed. 2. I have considered the submissions. Both the Orders pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioners have been passed subsequent to the Order of this Court in the Writ Petition. The first Order shows that the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents cannot act as trustees and their names have been ordered to be deleted from Schedule-I. The second Order is regarding removal of certain trustees including the Respondent nos. 3 and 4. The said orders will have its own legal effect, as the same have been passed subsequent to disposal of Writ Petition by this Court. In any case, the order passed in Writ Petition was to operate during the pendency of inquiry under Section 41-D. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for review. Accordingly, the Review Petition is disposed of. (A.S. OKA, J.)