1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 589/2010. Bhartiya Adiwasi Shiv Shikshan . -: versus :- Ku. Jayshree R. Maraskolhe and others. WRIT PETITION No. 730/2010. Dinesh Baburao Madavi and othes . -: versus :- Jt Charity Commissioner and others. 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. DATED : MARCH 03, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri R.L. Khapre and Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for respective petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 and respondent no.9, Shri A.M. Gordey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and respondent no.4 and Shri P. Gode, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 4 and respondent nos. 3 and 5 in respective petitions. Appeal against order accepting change report is pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and by the impugned order dated 18.01.2010, the said Authority has refused to grant interim stay to the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner during its pendency. Shri Khapre and Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel for petitioners, have taken strong exception to the reasons given by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the 2 impugned order and they also want to demonstrate certain errors [according to them] in the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. They point out that during the pendency of the change report proceedings, the adhoc body as constituted by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2009 in First Appeal No. 736/2009 was functioning. They contend that the said body needs to be changed to suit the changed circumstances and adhoc body should be continued during the pendency of the appeal. Shri Gordey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No. 589/2010 and Respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.730/2010 and Shri Gode, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 589/2010 have no objection if the adhoc body as nominated on 23.07.2009 by this Court is allowed to operate during the pendency of the appeal. They however, state that in case of urgent policy/ financial decision, the adhoc body should be permitted to approach the Joint Charity Commissioner and proceedings in appeal should be expedited. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that the adhoc body appointed by this Court on 23.07.2009 has continued to look after the affairs of the trust during the pendency of the change report proceedings and the said body therefore needs to be continued and can be continued as such, during the pendency of the appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner. However, the members of the aid body are given liberty to approach the Joint Charity Commissioner in case any major policy or financial decision becomes necessary. It is made clear that adjudication of such request should not obstruct the consideration of appeal on 3 merits by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The proceedings in Appeal No. 48/2009 before the Joint Charity Commissioner are expedited and the said Authority shall attempt to decide the appeal on its merits as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. Till then the adhoc body as nominated by this Court on 23.07.2009 shall continue to manage the affairs of the trust. The body is at liberty to approach the Joint Charity Commissioner for appropriate sanction / clearance in case any major policy/ financial decision becomes essential. With these directions both the Writ Petitions are disposed of, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.