( 1 ) wp7833.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7833 OF 2010 Vijayrao Annasaheb Gavhane & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Abasaheb Kishanrao Deshmukh & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 10.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. The petition is preferred by the petitioners against framing of the charges against them in the proceedings under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, vide order dated 23.06.2010. 2. Mr. Gunale vehemently argued that the charges are vague and are unsupported by any documentary evidence. 3. The stage of adducing evidence is yet to come. The petitioners are at liberty to show falsity in the charges or ( 2 ) wp7833.10 disprove the charges during the course of enquiry. 4. It is argued by Mr. Gunale that on basis of framing of charges, the petitioners are likely to be suspended. 5. It can be made clear that the suspension of the petitioner may not be effected unless there is tangible material against them to infer the alleged misconduct. If such reliable material prima facie is available then only such drastic action may be taken by the competent party i.e. Charity Commissioner. The learned Jt. Charity Commissioner has given reasons on application Exh. 21 regarding necessity to frame the charges. No interference is required in the interlocutory application and particularly when framing of the charges does not mean giving of any adverse finding against the petitioners. The petition stands dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp7833.10