-: 1 :- wp-2171/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2117 OF 2010 Vidyarthi Vikas Mitra Mandal. ..Petitioner. Versus Dy. Charity Commissioner of of Pune & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Rahul Kadam for the petitioner. Mr. S. V. Pitre for respondent no.2. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent no.1. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 14, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. V. Pitre, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned AGP for the State. 2. At the outset, Mr. Pitre, learned counsel for respondent no.2 takes preliminary objection about the maintainability of petition and submitted that Mr. Shantaram Dhondiba Chorge is not a member of the Board of Trustees and therefore he cannot file petition on behalf of the said Trust. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that this petition may be treated as filed by Shantaram Chorge in his capacity as founder member of the trust and not on behalf of the said trust – srp -: 2 :- wp-2171/10 Vidyarthi Vikas Mitra Mandal. In view of the submission, the petition is treated to be filed by Mr. Shantaram Chorge as a founder member and not as a trustee and on behalf of the trust. 3. The petition takes exception to the order dated 10th August 2006 passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner whereby the list of members submitted by the Trust–Vidyarthi Vikas Mitra Mandal, through its trustee Rajendra Dattatraya Bhosale is approved. The petitioner objects to this order on the ground that there is no provision in the Memorandum of Association of Trust about approval for membership, and therefore respondent no.1 Deputy Charity Commissioner does not get any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2, on the contrary, fairly accepted the position that there is no provision for approval of membership by the Deputy Charity Commissioner in the Memorandum of Association. He however pointed out Clause-8 and submitted that new members can be enrolled by passing Resolution by majority of member trustees. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has not challenged the resolution of the Board of Trustees enrolling the members in question. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the enrollment of the members by the Trust will not -: 3 :- wp-2171/10 be affected in the absence of approval by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, which is in fact not at all necessary. The impugned order is passed on 10th August 2006 and thereafter the present petition is filed in the year 2010, i.e., after four years. The petitioner has given some reasons explaining the delay. However, same are not satisfactory. Taking overall view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)