vss 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 WRIT PETITION NO.6694 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6694 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6694 OF 2008 Kondinba Banduji Wankhede & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Jaywant Shankarrao Shirket & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Gauri Jadhav for Petitioners Mr.R.S. Datar for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 13, 2009 APRIL 13, 2009 APRIL 13, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition has been filed against an order which has been passed on 2.7.2008. By this order, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were appointed as ‘fit persons’ to administer the trust known as Akhil Maharashtra Bhoi Samaj Seva Sangh, Pune till the election of a new body. After this order was passed, the present petition was filed on 14.8.2008. It was circulated for admission only on 1.10.2008. Immediately on that date, an order granting status quo as of that date was passed and parties were directed to act accordingly. 2. An affidavit has been filed on 13.12.2008 by Respondent No.1 in which he has stated that after the impugned order was passed on 2.7.2008, he and Respondent No.2 immediately took charge of the Trust and are managing the affairs of the Trust. Accordingly, letters : 2 : were issued by him to the concerned trustees on 14.7.2007 for holding the elections. 3. The learned advocate for the Petitioners seeks an adjournment to file rejoinder to this affidavit. In my opinion, there is no need to grant any adjournment for the same. Despite the petition having come up for admission after four months, no rejoinder has been filed and therefore, the request made by the learned advocate is rejected. 4. The petition has been filed in the name of 22 petitioners, the first two of whom had expired even before the Petition was filed. There is no pleading whatsoever in the petition that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are dead and therefore, this amounts to suppression of facts. Had this fact been disclosed in all probability, the order granting status quo would not have been passed. Apart from that, the Petitioner No.8 who has verified this petition has made himself liable for action for non-disclosure of this relevant fact. 5. The petition challenges the order of 2.7.2008 by which the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been directed to administer the trust as "fit persons" till the election of a new body. An earlier order was passed on 30.11.2007 by the Joint Charity Commissioner (the same : 3 : authority which has passed the impugned order) in which he has observed that the elections to the Akhil Maharashtra Bhoi Samaj Seva Sangh were not held in accordance with its constitution and therefore, stand set aside. However, while doing so, he has allowed the appeal filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein against the order dated 1.8.2006 by which the Change Report was accepted. The Joint Charity Commissioner has further directed the Deputy Charity Commissioner to consider whether the elections were held in accordance with the constitution of the Trust and then to decide the application with respect to the change report, uninfluenced by the observations made by him in his order. Admittedly, neither the Petitioners nor the Respondents have challenged this order. Therefore, as things stand today, it will have to be accepted that the matter has been remanded for a decision on the Change Report, afresh. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are in charge as fit persons to administer the trust. They will continue as such till the matter is decided by the Deputy Charity Commissioner in accordance with the order passed on 30.11.2007. In case, the Deputy Charity Commissioner decides that the elections were not held in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of the trust, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall hold elections to the : 4 : trust within three months of the order being passed by the authority. Till then, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will not take any major policy decisions with regard to the trust. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.