1 WP No. 5219.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5219 OF 2011 Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Tq. Sakri, District Dhule through its 1. Kamalakar Shankar Bole, Age 82 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Bazar Peth, Pimpalner, Tq. Sakri, District Dhule President 2. Mahendra S/o Ramrao Gangurde, Age 50 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Patil Lane, Pimpalner, Tq. Sakri, District Dhule Secretary ..PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. The Assistant Charity Commissioner Dhule, District Dhule 2. Kishor S/o Ramrao Marathe, Age 55 years, Occu. Service, R/o 26-C, Phule Colony, Dhule District Dhule. 3. Shankarrao S/o Bhagaji Mali, Age 74 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Chikse, Tq. Sakri, District Dhule ..RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioners Mr. V.G. Shelke, AGP for respondent /State Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 2 WP No. 5219.11 CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE:- 18th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: Shri Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the respondent No. 2. Leave to delete the respondent No. 2 is granted at the risk of petitioners. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The change report was submitted bearing enquiry No. 152 of 2003, notifying the change in the Constitution of the Trust. The same was given by the erstwhile trustee Kishor S/o Ramrao Marathe. The said proceedings are still pending. The present petitioners filed an application purportedly under Section 73-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act for adding them as party / applicants, and so also for setting aside no cross order passed against the trustee. The application is rejected by the Assistant Charity 3 WP No. 5219.11 Commissioner. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Shri Hon, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have been elected as the President and Secretary of the Trust and Shri Kishor Ramrao Marathe reporting trustee at the relevant time, is now not interested in the proceedings. As such, the petitioners be added as applicants to the said enquiry proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are not seeking deletion of the said reporting trustee but they should be added as applicants, as now they are President and Secretary of the said Trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner on wrong premise held that the name of the reporting trustee is to be deleted and rejected the application. The learned counsel further contends that no cross order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner also deserves to be set aside and the applicants / petitioners be allowed to cross- examine the respondent No. 3. 4 WP No. 5219.11 5. Shri M.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the status of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 as claimed by them as President and Secretary of the trust is denied by the respondent. The change report submitted by them pursuant to the said election is pending. The reporting trustee at the relevant time had filed enquiry No. 153/2003. At the said time the present petitioners admittedly do not claim themselves to be the President or Secretary. As such, they cannot be impleaded as parties. The authority has properly considered all these aspects. The learned counsel further contends that when they are not the parties, no question arises to allow them to cross-examine the respondent. 6. I made a query to the learned counsel as to whether in the year 2003 when the enquiry proceedings No. 152 of 2003 was filed, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were the trustees at the relevant time. The learned counsel answered in the affirmative. When at the relevant time the present petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are trustees of the 5 WP No. 5219.11 trust, then they would get right to be joined as party. Section 73-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act is clear, it lays down that any person having interest in the public trust on an application made by such person can be added as party. In the light of the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 herein were trustees at the relevant time, when the enquiry proceedings bearing No. 152 of 2003 were filed, the petitioners will get right to be impleaded as parties. I am not concerned with the dispute as to whether the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the President and Secretary of the Trust, the same would be decided in the appropriate proceedings. But as they were trustees at the relevant time, that would entitle them to be added as party in the proceedings. In the result, I pass following order. ORDER A] The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are allowed to be added as party in enquiry No. 152 of 2003, as they were trustees at the relevant time. 6 WP No. 5219.11 B] Petitioner No. 1 & 2 after the amendment adding them as parties is made, shall apply to the authority concerned for setting aside the no cross order, as before they are added as parties, the authority could not have allowed them to cross-examine the respondent. The authority shall consider the application filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 to cross-examine the respondent on its own merits. C] The Assistant Charity Commissioner is directed to decide the said application preferably within three months. Authenticated copy be given to the parties to act upon. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] SDM*July11