1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9434 OF 2009 Lord Venkateshwara Charitable and Religious Trust & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Dnyaneshwar D. Bathe & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar i/b M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. R. M. Pethe for Respondent No.1. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 4th February, 2010. P.C. 1. The order that is impugned is the order in revision under Section 70 (a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act passed on 23.09.2009 by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune region, Pune. The registration of the trust has been ordered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 19.04.2008. Respondent No.1 has sought to challenge the registration of the trust on various grounds. The Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1 challenged the very authority of the party making the application since he 2 was shown to be a servant of the trust obtaining renumeration from the trust and had been disqualified to be a trustee but had applied for registration in place of trustee. The Advocate for respondent No.1 also pointed out that all the agricultural land for which the public notice was given before the registration of the trust was sought to be purchased by private party for their personal funds and could not have been purchased by the trust as it is not an agricultural land. It is also shown that an earlier trust registered in 1998 was under an endowment in Hyderabad which is sought to be registered in Mumbai in the year 2005 which is well outside the period of time granted for registration. All this aspects are required to be considered in revision since the order of the registration of such trust has been passed. 2. The petitioner has challenged the maintainability of the revision application and has sought to have that decided as a preliminary issue. It is not shown under which provision of law the maintainability of the revision petition under Section 70 (a) can be disposed of as 3 a preliminary issue. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly considered that the matter needs detailed inquiry on questions of facts and law. 3. Writ petition is totally devoid of merits and is dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)