1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2656 OF 2010. Vinod Namdeorao Hiwale and others -: VERSUS :- The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim and others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2753 OF 2010. Narendra Rampratapji Jajoo -: VERSUS :- The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim and others. 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. DATED : JULY 14, 2010. Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for petitioners, Learned A.G.P.for respondent no.1 and Shri V.P. Panpalia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6. The matters were heard earlier on 09.07.2010 for final disposal because of the orders passed on 18.06.2010. To find out the bonafides of petitioners, chance was given to them and accordingly Shri Ghare, learned counsel for petitioners has filed additional affidavit of petitioners. By those additional affidavits the petitioners 2 state that they undertake to cooperate with the Assistant Charity Commissioner for expeditious disposal of the Change Report inquiry No. 696/2007 (New No.199/2009). They also seek similar directions to respondent nos. 2 to 6 in the matter. Writ Petition No. 2753/2010 arise out of the order dated 07.06.2010 refusing the application of petitioners to intervene in old enquiry of 2007. They also filed an application for clubbing subsequent change report filed vide enquiry No.503/2009 with it. That intervention application has been rejected also on 07.06.2010. This order is assailed in Writ Petition No. 2656/2010. Shri Ghare, learned counsel argues that the body in relation of whom change report filed in 2007 is pending, subsequently enrolled petitioners as members and in that body the vacancies occured. Those vacancies have been filled in through petitioners. The said change report is pending vide enquiry No. 503/2009. His contention is, if the petitioners are not permitted to intervene in old change report, in case of adverse orders therein, their subsequent induction automatically falls to ground. He has invited attention to earlier orders passed by this Court on 19.06.2009 in Writ Petition No.2135/2009, 3 wherein this Court has permitted the petitioners to intervene in proceedings before Joint Charity Commissioner. Shri Panpalia, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6 states that earlier orders of this Court permitting intervention is irrelevant, because it was under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act proceedings where the considerations are of general nature. According to him, the change report of 2007 is pertaining to period when the petitioners were not at all members of the Trust. That change report therefore, needs to be decided after hearing the parties to it and subsequent induction does not cloth the petitioners with any right. He also wants to rely upon some judgments to urge that effect of adjudication in 2007 change report cannot be the relevant consideration for allowing such application for intervention. He justifies the order by which the Assistant Charity Commissioner has refused to club both the change report together. In addition, he states that such clubbing needs to be ordered by the Higher Authorities and the Assistant Charity Commissioner does not possess that jurisdiction. In reply, Shri Ghare, learned counsel points out that there was another Writ Petition before this Court vide Writ Petition No. 2135/2009 and vide order dated 4 29.09.2009, this Court permitted petitioners to raise issue of membership before the Appropriate Authority. According to him the change report proceedings is the only appropriate forum for said purpose. The facts clearly show that in 2007 elections, the petitioners were not involved. They became members subsequently. Hence leave granted in Writ Petition No. 2135/2009 is of no assistance. The vacancies caused in body elected in 2007 appear to have been occupied by them and a change report filed in 2009 on that account is also pending. It is obvious that if, elections conducted in 2007 are held to be illegal, the induction of petitioners as members of the Trust and their subsequent elections to fill in vacancies in 2007 body automatically fall to ground. But, as rightly pointed out by Shri Panpalia, learned counsel that is an inevitable consequence, and petitioners have accepted that risk and they cannot claim any interest in 2007 elections. I have perused the application as filed, and no case for grant of permission to intervene in the matter is made out. I, therefore, find that in writ jurisdiction no exception can be taken to the order refusing leave to intervene. Nature of proceedings under section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act is different and hence, in larger interest the intervention can 5 be allowed there. That leave to intervene is not conclusive in present matter. Shri Panpalia, learned counsel has during arguments pointed out that there are 73 such persons who claim to have been enrolled subsequently. If this is the position, it is apparent that the change report proceedings would never come to an end and before culmination of earlier change report a new change report can be filed necessitating intervention of such incumbents in pending change. I, therefore, find substance in the contention of Shri Panpalia, learned counsel as it will be an unending process. Hence impact of such adjudication of earlier change report on subsequent one is therefore, not a relevant consideration here. The authority has also found that the question can be gone into in subsequent change and earlier change are different, prayer for consolidation is, therefore, rejected. I do not find anything wrong with the application of mind. Both the Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.