1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.138 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5273 OF 2008 Bhartiya Kala Prasarini Sabha and anr. ...Appellant. Vs. Shri.Rajiv V. Bhoite and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. S.V.Pitre for the Appellant. Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP. for the Respondent No.2 to 5. Mr. R.S.Kate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2009 PC : 1. By consent of the parties, appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. The appellant has made two grievances against the order impugned. According to the learned counsel, as the learned Single Judge has not disturbed the order for handing over of the charge to the respondent No.2, the learned Single Judge could not 2 have permitted filing of an application under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act for appointment of an Administrator. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, under Section-41A, the Administrator cannot be appointed. He further submits that the directions contained in Para-7 of the order of the learned Single Judge restrict the respondent No.2 from taking any policy decision involving financial matters till the application to be filed under Section 41A of the Act is decided, is made without assigning any reason therefor. The learned counsel submits that there was no necessity to make such an order. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perusal of the order shows that, there are no reasons given by the learned Single Judge for making the directions contained in Para-7 of her order. A direction restraining the respondent No.2 who is in- charge of the trust from taking any major policy decision in relation to the trust which is running 3 educational institution would have been made only after considering the whole gamut including Constitution of the trust, the educational institution run by the trust need to place the restrictions, likely to affect of such restrictions etc., in our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in making that direction without considering the relevant aspect and without giving any reasons. A grievance was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has restrained the respondent No.2 from taking any policy decision involving financial matters till the application to be filed by the petitioner under Section 41A of the Act for appointment of Administrator for the trust is decided but such a direction cannot be made under Section 41A, in our opinion, as the application is to be filed before the Charity Commissioner, it will be open to the appellant to raise all objections that he may have to that application including objection about the maintainability of the application and therefore, in 4 our opinion, it will not be appropriate for us to interfere in that part of the order. In our view, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. ORDER a. Para-7 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No.5273 of 2008 is set aside. However, the Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make an application seeking the same relief before the authorities under Bombay Public Trust Act and in case, such an application is made, the authority shall decide that application in accordance with law and to such application, it will be open to the parties to raise all objection which they may have. b. In so far as application to be filed by the respondent No.1 under Section-41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, as per the order passed by the Single Judge of this court, it will be open to the respondent No.2 5 to raise all objections that he may have in law to the maintainability of the application and as to the grant of relief to be claimed in that application. c. Appeal partly succeed to the extent stated above. d. Civil Application No.165 of 2009 for stay of the impugned order is accordingly disposed off. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) ( R.S.MOHITE, J.)