wp3322-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3322 OF 2010 Maniklal Lunawat & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Jain Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. M.P.Lunawat in person Mr.S.A.Sawant for respondent No.1 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] This petition is directed against an order dated 29th March 2010 below Exhibits 49, 56 and 59. That these are the applications moved in the main proceedings being Application No.13 of 2007. Application No.13 of 2007 seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner under section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Exhibit 49 was seeking relief of restraining the opponents to the main application from operating bank accounts. Exhibit No.56 seeks to impugn the process of calling tenders and Exhibit No.59 is also seeking a wp3322-10.doc 2 direction to produce all tender documents, bank books etc. 2] Upon these three applications, after hearing both sides at length the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune passed an order on 29th March 2010 rejecting these three applications. 3] Since the applicant – petitioner is appearing in person and he is a senior citizen, I have heard him at length. Despite repeatedly asking him whether he desires to engage any Advocate or whether he wants legal assistance, he stated that because of his age he does not wish to engage any Advocate and would like to argue this petition himself. 4] He points out that the Trust has one of the Institutions being administered and managed by it. That is an Educational Institution. The applicant – petitioner had studied in the same. The applicant has alleged that the elections since 1988 are illegal. The change reports have been contested. The wp3322-10.doc 3 applicant says that despite several years going by, there is no final decision on these change reports. Even in section 41-D proceedings, the charges have been framed. Applicant finds it very difficult now to attend the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner. He submits that his desire is to have complete transparency and effective administration in an Educational Trust. However, with his advanced age, he is unable to cope up with the number of proceedings that are pending. If the total number is taken into account, it is 60 in number and that is not disputed. 5] Despite hearing the petitioner at length and considering his grievance anxiously, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the orders under challenge because they are made during the pendency of proceedings under section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 6] Ultimately those are facing action under section 41-D and others connected with the Trust were sought to be wp3322-10.doc 4 restrained from taking major decisions including inviting tenders for construction activity. It is not necessary at this stage to enter into any wider controversy as to whether any composite application viz., seeking interim reliefs in the main matter under section 41-D and relief under section 41-E of the Act can be made in one proceeding and application or separate applications are needed. Whether the order dated 18th December 2006 bars making composite application or not. All these pleas can be raised by the petitioner – applicant if he is aggrieved with the final order on the main application No.13 of 2007. The main application be now decided expeditiously. Petition disposed off. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)