rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.139 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO.139 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO.139 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8295 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 8295 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 8295 OF 2006 Vithal Mahadev Gosavi & Anr. .. Petitioner Vs. Mandangad Taluka Vikas Mandal & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Rajeshirke for the Petitioner. Ms.Deepa S.Matwankar for Respondent No.1. Mr.Patne, A.G.P.for the State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 30TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 30TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 30TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Review Petition seeking recall and review of my order in the Writ Petition. 2. It is stated by the Review Petitioner that the first Respondent to this Petition for Review has been dormant for last more than 40 years and it is the Petitioner who is the real trustee and the Trust that has been formed by the Petitioner and others is the genuine Mandangad Taluka Vikas Mandal. In these ( 2 ) circumstances the order passed by this Court discharging the fit person and allowing the Petition is erroneous. It is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner. 3. It is then contended that the Court could not have discharged the fit person. More so, when the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner rejecting the enquiry application No.251 of 1995 dated 19th June, 2006 has been challenged before the Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal being Appeal No.24 of 2006 and that Appeal is pending. In these circumstances, the fit person appointed should have been directed to be continued until disposal of the Appeal. He could not have been discharged. More so, when there is a serious controversy as to whether the Review Petitioner represents the real trust or the first Respondents is the Trust in question. 4. On last occasion, I had directed Shri Patne, learned A.G.P.appearing for the State to take instructions as to whether the Appeal before the Joint ( 3 ) Charity Commissioner is pending or is disposed of and whether the fit person has been discharged. 5. Mr.Patne after taking instructions from the Charity Commissioner Maharashtra State, Bombay, states that the Charity Commissionerhas directed the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur, Division - Kolhapur to decide the Appeal No.24 of 2006 so also the Misc. Application No.16 of 2008 pending before him as expeditiously as possible. 6. I have perused the communication of the Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur, Division Kolhapur, copy of which is produced by Shri Patne. In my view, once there is judicial order passed by this Court discharging the fit and proper person appointed earlier, then, the order of this Court is binding on all concerned. It was their plain duty to give effect to the same in law. There is no question of the order not being clear to the Charity Commissioner or the Joint Charity Commissioner, about who must be handed over the charge after discharging the fit person. The Authorities ( 4 ) were aware that the original Petitioner is Respondent No.1 to this Review Petition. The original Petitioner had challenged the order dated 12th June, 2006 in the Writ Petition. After the Writ Petition was allowed on 17th January, 2008, that order ought to have implemented by handing over charge to the original Petitioner before this Court. There is no occasion for confusion or ambiguity. The Charity Commissioner at the most could have clarified that handing over charge is subject to the outcome of the Appeal, which is pending. However, there is a serious lapse in delaying the implementation of this Court’s order. At this stage, nothing more need be said. At one stage, I was inclined to accept the submission of the original Petitioner before me (Respondent No.1 to this Review Petition) to take serious cognizance of this lapse and issue appropriate directions. However, on instructions of the Vice President of the Respondent No.1 who is present in Court, the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 makes a statement that the charge in fact is with the first Respondent. There is no question of the charge being with any other person, more so, when the person earlier ( 5 ) appointed has been discharged by a judicial order. 7. Considering that the Review Petition raises factual matters which were not earlier raised before this Court and finding that no error apparent is pointed out which would vitiate the order dated 17th January, 2008, there is no necessity of interfering in my review jurisdiction. Since all factual and legal aspects can be pointed out in the pending Appeal, no prejudice will be caused to the Review Petitioner. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, it is clarified that if Respondent No.1 to this Review Petition is managing the affairs of the Educational Institutions, it shall do so subject to the outcome of the pending Appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur, Division Kolhapur. All actions and decisions of the first Respondent in this Review Petition would be subject to the out come of the Appeal. All the contentions on merits of both sides are expressly kept open. This Court has not decided the controversy on merits nor has gone into the genuineness or otherwise of the ( 6 ) documents which are produced at the time of hearing of the Review Petition. All contentions and pleas based on these documents are also kept open. 9. Since the Charity Commissioner has now addressed a communication to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur, Division Kolhapur to dispose of the pending Appeal, it is directed that Appeal No.24 of 2006 pending before this Joint Charity Commissioner shall be taken up for hearing and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and by 28th February, 2009. Needless to state that, if the said Appeal is allowed, the Joint Charity Commissioner can pass appropriate orders and directions with regards to the Management of the educational institutions and the Trust and merely because earlier fit person has been discharged, it does not prevent the Joint Charity Commissioner from passing necessary orders in accordance with law. Needless to state further that, the Joint Charity Commissioner must decide the Appeal after hearing both sides. 10. Parties to appear before the Joint Charity ( 7 ) Commissioner, Kolhapur, Division Kolhapur on 5th February, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. All concerned to act on authenticated copy. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)