SSK/19 1 WP.1033.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2011 Mahant Shivkumardas Guru ....Petitioner Versus Vijay Marutirao Raug & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. P. B. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos. 3 & 4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shetye, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. S. N. Bhosale, learned AGP for respondent nos.3 & 4. 2. Mr. Shetye, learned counsel undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.2. 3. By the order impugned in this petition, the respondent no.4 has framed charges against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (in short “the Act”). The only apprehension, the petitioner has is that he may be suspended SSK/19 2 WP.1033.11 pending the disposal of the charges and the charge of the trust will be handed over to the fit person. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, in my view, the petition can conveniently be disposed of, by passing the following order: 1. In the event, the respondent no.4 passes an order under Clause 3 of 41-D and keeps the petitioner under suspension, then, such order shall not be implemented for a period of one week from the date of communication thereof to the petitioner. 2. The respondent no.4 shall proceed to decide the respondent no. 1 & 2’s application independently on it own merits and in accordance with law. 3. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and all the points and contentions are kept open. 4. This order will not apply, in case, the final order is passed under Clause (1) of 41-D of the Act. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)