1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3445 OF 2010. (DR. (MRS.) BEENA CHOUGULEY & OTH..VS..YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.S. Ghate, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Anjan De, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs I.L. Boade, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 07, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur on 9th April, 2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for special audit under Section 33(4)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not heard in the matter before the application for special audit under Section 33(4)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was decided and since the audited accounts did not give true and fair view of the financial affairs of the public trust it was necessary to conduct a special audit under Section 33(4)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2010 along with the affidavit of the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 10.02.2011, it appears that the first submission made on behalf of the petitioners regarding denial of opportunity to 2 the petitioners of being heard in the matter before the order dated 09.04.2010 was passed is liable to be rejected. It is categorically observed in the impugned judgment dated 9th April, 2010 that the petitioner No.1 appeared on behalf of the applicant before the order was passed on application under Section 33(4)(a) of the Act of 1950. It is also stated in the affidavit of the Joint Charity Commissioner that on the date of hearing, both the parties, i.e. the petitioner and the respondent were duly heard. The Joint Charity Commissioner was justified in rejecting the application under Section 33(4)(a) of the Act of 1950 as the Accountant of the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner did not see any defect in the audited accounts of the trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner held that it could not be said that the audited accounts for the years 2003 and 2004 were not properly scrutinized by the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner was careful in passing the impugned order dated 09.04.2010 inasmuch as the Joint Charity Commissioner held that if found necessary the authority may direct the scrutiny of the account statements. In fact, by the impugned order dated 09.04.2010 the Accountant of the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner was directed to properly scrutinize the audited report submitted by the trust and after giving an opportunity to the trustees on record, submit his report. The impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 09.04.2010 is extremely just and reasonable as while rejecting the application under Section 33(4)(a) of the Act of 1950, the Joint Charity Commissioner took care to direct the Accountant of his office to properly scrutinise the audited report. The impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 09.04.2010 does not suffer from any 3 jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..