1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3407/2009 (Sonaji Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha and others ..vs.. Administrator, Sonaji Sanstha) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- DECEMBER 01, 2009 Heard finally by consent of the parties. Learned Advocate Shri N.R.Saboo for the petitioners has pointed out that by order dated 25/5/1995 on Misc. Application No. 13/1994, Shri Pandurang Ghumre and Jagannath Tidke i.e. present petitioner No.2, were restrained from interfering with the administration/affairs of the petitioner trust untill further orders and that restraint ceased to operate on 22/1/1998 when proceedings under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act were finally dismissed. He, therefore, states that the restraint put untill further orders was not in force when the subsequent elections have been conducted as per the orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 02/4/2007. He points out that Shri Ghumre has not been elected in those elections and present petitioner No.2 Shri Tidke has been elected. The change report proceedings have been accordingly filed and by impugned 2 judgment, delivered on another application under Section 41-A, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has prohibited the elected body from taking over the charge from the Administrator. He points out that when Administrator is functioning and there is no other rival/counter change report, the elected body in such circumstances could not have restrained from assuming charge. Learned AGP Shri Fulzele for respondent No.1, learned Advocate Shri Jaiswal for respondent No. 3 and learned Advocate Shri S.T.Harkare for respondent No.2, however, contended that prohibition imposed upon Shri Tidke by order dated 25/5/1995 of Joint Charity Commissioner in Misc. Application No. 13/1994 is still operating. According to them, in these circumstances, the impugned order rightly restrains him and his body from assuming charge. They have relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2008(4) All M.R. 707 in the case of Dinkar Shankarrao Patil and others ..vs.. Dr. Sheshrao Shankarrao Patil and others to support their contention. I have perused the relevant orders and I find that the change report proceedings filed by present petitioners are still pending. There is no rival change report filed by anybody else. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 have informed that one Shri Ashokkumar Gangane has filed Misc. Application No. 3/2008 and sought condonation of delay and raised 3 challenge to the order dated 02/4/2007 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in response to which, the present elections have been held. Learned Advocate Shri Saboo has contended that this has been deliberately done with malafide intention. It is apparent that since long the Administrator is holding the affairs and on 02/4/2007 the Assistant Charity Commissioner directed appointment of Election Officer and holding of elections. Neither the present petitioners nor respondents before this court assailed those orders. The elections have been held accordingly and Change Report also came to be filed. The respondents have not filed any other Change Report. The said Shri Ashokkumar Gangane also appears not to have filed any Change Report. In these circumstances, when the general body has elected petitioner No.2 and others as new trustees, it is premature to assume that their status as trustee is being disputed by anybody. However, from order dated 22/1/1998 on Misc. Application No. 20/1993, it is not very clear whether the earlier restrictions placed upon Shri Tidke on 25/5/1995 ceased to operate. That issue can be looked into while resolving the controversy by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The remaining trustees i.e. petitioner Nos.3 to 6 can be permitted to take charge of the affairs of the trustees from the Administrator. The impugned order dated 19/6/2009 to that extent is unsustainable. 4 The said order dated 19/6/2009 passed by Asistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana is, therefore, modified and present petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 are directed to take charge of the petitioner No.1 trust from the Administrator. As jointly requested, the Change Report proceedings filed by the petitioners are expedited and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31st December, 2010. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.