1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3806 OF 2010 (The Akola District Council for the Child Welfare, Akola & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 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. SEPTEMBER 14, 2010. The matter was heard yesterday for quite some time and as Shri Sohoni, learned counsel for the intervenor was not available, it was adjourned to today. I have heard Shri Sohoni, learned counsel in view of his application for intervention. The same is allowed. He is heard on merits also. By impugned order dated 19.07.2010, Respondent No. 1 – State Government has directed Respondent No. 5 – Zilla Parishad to appoint administrator to look after the affairs of petitioner No. 1 – Public Trust. The short contention of Shri Ghare, learned counsel is, the power to appoint administrator is with State Government and hence Respondent No. 5 cannot appoint Administrator. In any case before appointing Administrator, Respondent No. 1 ought to have heard the petitioners i.e. interim body which is managing the affairs in terms of orders dated 12.01.2010 passed by respondent No. 2. Shri Joshi, learned AGP as also Shri Sohoni, learned counsel state that interim orders dated 2 12.01.2010 have not been challenged by the petitioners and the petitioners have been managing the affairs of the Trust in pursuance thereof. The said order itself stipulates that this interim arrangement will continue till the Government appoints administrator and the order further states that no separate hearing at the time of appointment of Administrator will be granted. As this order has not been challenged, writ petition is not maintainable. Shri Sohoni, learned counsel has further urged that petitioner No. 2 Shri K.D. Gholap is not authorized and Shri Vinayak Agashe through petitioner No. 1 has approached this Court, is not a Treasurer authorized to file this petition. Shri Ghare, learned counsel in his reply made averments in para 2 and has further invited attention to findings recorded in the order of Respondent No. 2 dated 12.01.2010 to show that intervenor did not then participate in the proceedings. The State Government has produced before this Court a notification dated 09.03.2004 by which the power to appoint administrator on such Trust are with the State Government and are required to be exercised in accordance with the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976. Though the resolution by itself does not contemplate any opportunity of hearing, the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of said Act show the necessity of grant thereof. 3 Here, it is not the case that the petitioners need not be heard. The contention is, hearing granted by Respondent No. 2 while passing orders on 12.01.2010 is sufficient and no further hearing is, therefore, contemplated. It is, therefore, clear that the authority which is appointing Administrator has not granted hearing and the authority which has granted hearing is not appointing Administrator. In this situation, as on today, the petitioners as members of interim body continue to look after the affairs of the petitioner – Trust, without resolving any disputed questions, I find it proper to direct Respondent No. 1 to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, intervenor and other interested persons, if any, and pass further appropriate orders in accordance with law. Only for said purpose, the impugned order dated 19.07.2010 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners and intervenors shall appear before respondent No. 1 on 04th October 2010 and shall abide by its further instructions in the matter. Respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case within a further period of two weeks thereafter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to AGP. JUDGE *GS.