1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2006 (Shri Kamlesh Juddurai Ambani & anr. Vs. Shri Murlidhar Wamanrao Wanmali & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 25 th November, 2008 Heard Shri Morande for the petitioners, Shri Adgokar, the learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Gaikwad for respondent nos. 5, 8 to 10 and 13. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Gadchiroli, on 25/5/2006 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for conducting an enquiry against the respondent nos.1 and 2/trustees, under Section 41B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It was the case of the petitioners that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were misusing the property of the Trust and treating the same as their own private property. It was the case of the petitioners that the meetings were not held 2 in a proper manner and certain amounts were also misappropriated by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, though the said amounts belonged to the Trust. On hearing the parties and perusing the material available on record, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Gadchiroli, by the impugned order dated 25/5/2006, rejected the application. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also perused the impugned order dated 25/5/2006. The Assistant Charity Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that there was no substance in the application filed by the petitioners. According to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the complaint of the applicants was not substantiated by the relevant documents. The Assistant Charity Commissioner considered the fact that the petitioners were the trustees and they were also parties to several resolutions which were passed by the Managing Committee. From the material produced by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on record, the Assistant Charity 3 Commissioner found that some of the amounts of the Trust were received by the petitioner no.1 and the son of the petitioner no.2. Since the Assistant Charity Commissioner found that there was no substance in the allegations of misappropriation and defalcation of the amount of the Trust, the same was rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner by the impugned order dated 25/5/2006. On a perusal of the record, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has held that there was no reason to allow the application filed by the petitioners under Section 41B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The scope of this Court to interfere with the findings recorded by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is extremely limited. Since there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 25/5/2006, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP