- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.180 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4623 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.180 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4623 OF 2009 Mrs. Charuben Kishor Mehta .... Appellant Vs. Chetan P. Mehta & Ors. .... Respondents S/Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel with Pranav Badheka, Akhit Sibba, Hetal Thakore, Rohan Kelkar, Rambir Singh and Naser Ali i/b M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Appellant. S/Shri C.U. Singh, Senior Counsel with Ashwin Sakelkar and Jay Kansara i/b M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates for Respondent No.1. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 10TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C: 1. There is a lot of litigation between - 2 - the parties and in a series it appears to be the latest wherein application has been filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the Charity Commissioner. An application came to be filed before the Charity Commissioner by the appellant seeking dismissal of the application filed under Section 41D on the ground that the allegations levelled in the said application were already the subject- matter of the earlier two petitions pending before the Charity Commissioner. Therefore, the allegations levelled in the present application could be taken care of by deciding the earlier petitions. The Charity Commissioner found the application of the appellant to be premature and dismissed the same. A writ petition was filed in this Court. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition agreed with the order passed by the Charity Commissioner. 2. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for both the sides at length and also perused the records. As already stated, there is a long history of litigation between the parties and at any opportunity available to any of the parties, they knock at the doors of the - 3 - Court. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even from the application it is manifest that all the controversies raised there could be gone into in the petitions which are already pending before the Charity Commissioner and one petition is a suo motu application of 2005. But the applications of 2005 and 2007 are not being processed presently because of an order of this Court in Writ Petition No.4787 of 2008 by which the learned single Judge directed that Application No.5 of 2008 should be decided first and the present application has been filed only to defeat this order. 3. We have also perused the order of the learned single Judge and we do not find any ground at this stage to interfere with the same. However, to avoid any confusion, we direct that the Charity Commissioner shall hear the parties, peruse the records made available to him and pass a reasoned order whether charge is to be framed in the matter or not and if the Charity Commissioner comes to the conclusion that charge is to be framed against the appellant, he shall give reasons for framing each of the charges. The Charity Commissioner would be at liberty to either - 4 - frame or not to frame charge, as he deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and after he passes the order, any party aggrieved by such order would be at liberty to take any appropriate remedy available to him/her in law. With the above observations, the letters patent appeal is disposed of. In view of the disposal of the letters patent appeal, the civil application does not survive and accordingly stands disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.