1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 565 OF 2010 MUNWAR AHMED NAEEM AHMED & ANR ..Petitioners VERSUS JT.CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND ORS ..Respondents ... Shri Niteen V.Gaware, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri V.B.Ghadge, AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for respondent No.5. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH,J. Dated : 17.2.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. I do not feel it necessary now at this stage to hear other respondents. 2. Shri Gunale, learned Advocate for respondent No.5 fairly concedes that respondent No.5 had moved the application Exhibit 71 before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Enquiry Application No. 23 of 2008 under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which came to be decided on 30.12.2009. Said order is questioned by the petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, this order is illegal, more so, on the background of the fact that identical application 2 was filed by one of the trustees at Exhibit 48 in the same proceeding. That application was decided on 7.5.2009 keeping open the dispute regarding membership for decision along with decision of the inquiry. Said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.3854 of 2009 (Exhibit "D"). Said petition was decided by this Court on 25.6.2009. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the said order and more specifically paragraph Nos.3 and 4. 3. Shri Gunale, learned Advocate tried to distinguish the application Exhibit 71 filed in the trial Court. He supports the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, impugned in this petition. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions on behalf of the parties. 5. Parties are not at the issue regarding the fact that the trust in question is a registered trust with the authority concerned in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. There is also consensus amongst the parties that the trust is imparting education through various schools which are aided institutions, meaning thereby, that they are getting the aid from the public exchequer contributed by the citizens at large. Enquiry Application is filed under Section 41-D of the said Act. Respondent No.5 is officiating as a trustee. Applicants of Exhibit 71 are 3 allegedly members of the said trust. However, respondent No.5 contends that they are no more members of the trust. "Person interested" is defined under Section 2(10) of the Act. Apart from the status of a particular person as a trustee validly elected, member validly enrolled, person having interest etc. is also brought in by the Legislature in their wisdom. Such persons having interest have been armed with the powers to move the authorities in the interest of the trust. The expression "person having interest" must be interpreted in the wide context taking into account the interest of the trust. In the case on hand, in my view, the view taken by this Court in earlier Writ Petition is legal and proper. I am in agreement with the said view taken. This Court always has deprecated protraction of the proceeding before the Court or quasi judicial authority. Such attempts are bound to be made by the litigants having vested interests. There is no distinction, in my view, in the set of facts, available at the time of filing earlier application Exhibit 48 or present application Exhibit 71. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3854 of 2009 was made available to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Despite this fact, the impugned order is passed by the said authority. In my view, interference by this Court, in the extra ordinary jurisdiction is necessary. 6. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Joint Charity Commissioner is directed to hear and decide the Enquiry Application No.23 of 2008 as a whole along with 4 the application Exhibit 71. Shri Gunale, learned Advocate submits that six month's time be granted to learned Joint Charity Commissioner for the said purpose. Shri Gavare, learned Advocate however, submits that three month's time would be sufficient. I am directing the Joint Charity Commissioner to decide the Enquiry Application so also application Exhibit 71 in accordance with the provisions of law, within three months from the date of the appearance of the parties. Petitioners and respondent No.5 shall appear before the Joint Charity Commissioner on 4.3.2010, which date, according to Shri Gunale, learned Advocate is already slated by the Joint Charity Commissioner for hearing of Enquiry Application No.23 of 2008. All parties are at liberty to raise their contentions before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, who shall consider and decide the points raised and pass order in accordance with the provisions of law. No order as to costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) ... akl