1 wp594.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 594 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.N. Neharkar, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel with Mr. G.K. Thigale, Advocate for respondent nos. 9 and 12. Mr. G.K. Thigale, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 8, 10, 11 and 13 to 19. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2011 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Jadhav for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Senior Advocate Mr. Shah with Advocate Mr. Tigale Naik for other respondents. 2. At the outset Advocate Mr. Jadhav states that the petitioner no.1 has expired and seeks leave to delete him. Leave granted. Necessary amendment be carried out 2 wp594.11 forthwith. 3. Advocate Mr. Jadhav for petitioners points out that the proceedings in appeal challenging the change report judgments were sought to be transferred by approaching Charity Commissioner at Mumbai. It was found that the said authority also is one of the member and has caste vote in the elections. He further contends that in the proceedings which are pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur (Incharge Joint Charity Commissioner at Aurangabad), the petitioners have reason to apprehend biased attitude of Presiding Officer. Attention is invited to the pleadings in paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 to substantiate this contentions. In view of these pleadings, it is urged that the matter needs to be transferred from the file of Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur (Incharge Joint Charity Commissioner at Aurangabad) to some third officer. 4. Respective Counsel appearing for the respondents oppose the prayers and contend that in the impugned order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the Charity Commissioner, there is due application of mind and no interference is warranted. 5. The impugned order produced before this Court is dated 18.12.2010 and there the request for transfer of appeal nos. 27 and 28/2009 has been rejected. 3 wp594.11 6. Pleadings to which attention of this Court has been invited are extremely vague. The source of knowledge is not disclosed and placing reliance upon the alleged rumour, the request for transfer was moved and loss of confidence has been expressed. Verification filed therewith is also defective in as much as all the contentions are stated to be true and correct to the best of "knowledge and belief" of the present petitioners. What part is true to their knowledge and what pleadings are believed to be correct and reasons for such belief are not disclosed. 7. I therefore find no case made out warranting any interference in use of its discretion by Charity Commissioner. 8. However, during the hearing it was noticed by this Court that the present petitioners had not filed their written notes of arguments in appeal no.28 of 2009. Hence they are permitted to file their written notes of arguments in appeal no. 28 of 2009 within a period of two weeks from today, if they so desire. After the said period of two weeks, the respondent no.2 authority shall be free to proceed further with the adjudication of appeals in accordance with law. 9. Advocate Mr. Jadhav had relied upon the judgment 4 wp594.11 of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at " AIR 1957 S.C. 425 ( Manak Lal Advocate, V/s Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and others). The discussion therein is in the light of provisions of Bar Council Act, 1926 and the distinction has been drawn in pecuniary interest and bias. The fact shows that Bar Council Tribunal was appointed to make enquiry into allegations of misconduct by the appellant and it consisted of three members with one `C' as its Chairman. `C' had earlier filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and had argued that case. The Court therefore found that he had acted pleader for applicants in Section 145 proceedings out of which the misconduct proceedings arose. Further consideration is in this back ground. Rulling therefore has no application in the present facts. 10. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp594.11