1 W.P.No.4043.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4043 OF 2010 Madhavrao Kashinath Sable ... PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others ... RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Deepali Jape Ansigkar,Advocate for Petitioner Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar A.G.P.for respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Heard Counsel. 2] The petitioner is President of the Trust and was elected in 1993. The change report was filed in 2008, after next election and enquiry was being held by Assistant Charity Commissioner. It was due to objection raised by the petitioner himself that the opposite party sought permission to lead evidence, though earlier pursis was filed that no evidence would be led. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner granted the application. 3] The Enquiry under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is not strictly an adversary trial as such. Though, the procedural provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are generally applicable yet the Charity 2 W.P.No.4043.10 Commissioner is not strictly governed by such procedure and in the interest of justice the permission could have been granted to the respondent No.5 Raghunath to lead evidence. No perversity is noticed in the impugned order. The petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK