1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 587/2009 Asif Hussain Munaf Hussain and othes ..vrs.. The Joint Charity Commissioner & others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------- - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - - - - CORAM : Smt. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 20 th APRIL, 2009 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati on 24.12.2008 directing the non-applicant nos. 1,2 and 5 to produce the documents mentioned in Clause [b] and [c] of the Civil Application filed by the respondents. The non-applicants are further directed to produce the document at Clause [a]. It appears from the application filed by the respondents/original applicant in the proceedings before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati that 5 documents mentioned in the application were in possession of the non-applicant nos. 1 2, and 5. It is stated in 2 the application that the documents are necessary to prove the charges leveled against the non- applicants/petitioners. The application filed by the respondents/original applicant was objected to by the petitioners. It was stated in the reply to the application filed by the original applicants, that there were no pleadings about the said documents in the application filed by the respondents under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act. In the additional submissions in the reply, the history of the litigation is stated, and then it is stated that 5 documents of which the production is sought are not related with the enquiry under Section 41D of the Act. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati however, by order dated 24.12.2008 partly allowed the application filed by the original applicant and directed the original non-applicant nos. 1,2 and 5 to produce the documents at Clause [a], [b] and [c] in the application at Exh.29. I have perused the documents as also the pleadings of the parties and the notice to produce documents. It appears from the application filed by the original applicant under Section 41 D of the 3 Act, that a specific allegation is made against the original non-applicant no.5 that she is serving in the school of the Trust and the non-applicant no.5 was admitted in the Municipal Corporation School at Amravati on 20.04.1951. The date of birth of non-applicant no.5 is 09.06.1945 and as such she is 62 years of age but by manipulating the record and by showing false date of birth, she was continued in the school even after completion of 58 years. A false entry of birth date was recored in service book and the original non-applicant nos. 1 to 9 cheated the trust and the Government by continuing the non-applicant no.5 in service, even after the completion of 58 years of service. The serious allegations made against the non-applicants have been denied by the non- applicants by filing reply. In this background, the original applicant had filed an application for direction to the original non-applicants to produce certain documents of which permission is granted. The documents are - (a) Mark statement of 4th standard of the school form of non-applicant no.5, showing that she had passed 4th standard. 4 (b) Dakhal Khariz Register of Association of Urdu Boys High School for the period 22.07.1956 to 30.04.1960. (c) Dakhal Khariz Register of Association of Urdu Girls High School from January 1959 to 30.04.1963 That on perusal of the other pleadings in the application under Section 41D of the Act, it is clear that the documents are relevant for framing and establishing the charges against the original non-applicants. It is not the case of the non-applicants in the reply to Exh.29, that these documents are not in possession of the non- applicants or that they cannot be secured by the non-applicants by making an effort in that regard. In such circumstances, it appears that the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati rightly by the order dated 24.12.2008 directed the non-applicant nos. 1,2 and 5 to produce the documents at Clause [b] and [c] and the non-applicant no.5 to produce document at clause [a]. There is no error whatsoever in the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, much less a jurisdictional error so as to interfere 5 with the same in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd