1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5009/2008 (Mahadeorao Govindrao Raut VERSUS Rajeshwar Ramesh Jotangiya & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri U.N. Vyas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.A. Mohta, counsel for the R-1. Mrs. S.S. Wandile, A.G.P. for the R-2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 26, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola on 18.07.2008 allowing an application filed by the respondent no.1 for impleading him as an objector in the change report enquiry. It is stated in the application filed by the respondent no.1 for joining him as a party to the proceedings that he was staying along with the objector, his father, who was the Ex-Secretary of the trust. It is stated in the application that he was staying in the premises of the society along with his father and was looking after the Temple situated in the premises along with his father, who was the Secretary. The respondent no.3 has stated in the application that he had worked hard for fulfilling the objects of the trust. 2 Since his father was objecting the change report, it is the case of the respondent no.1, that after his death, he wanted to pursue the matter, being interested in the affairs of the society. The application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the applicant/respondent no.1 had no concern with the society and the right to sue was extinguished on the death of the objector, the father of the respondent no.1. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, however, on an appreciation of the facts on record, by the impugned order dated 18.07.2008, allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Assistant Charity Commissioner was justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1. It is an admitted fact that the respondent no.1 was the son of the founder trustee and was a devotee and a beneficiary of the trust. According to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the case of the respondent no.1 fell within the provisions of Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Since the respondent no.1 was staying in the premises of the society and was looking after the Temple, the Assistant Charity Commissioner held that the respondent no.1 was a 3 beneficiary and, hence, he was entitled to be joined as a party to the enquiry. The order passed by the Assistant charity Commissioner appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It would be useful to refer to the judgment in the case of Suresh Hiralal Shah Versus Mahavir Swami Digambar Jain Mandir Trust reported in 2001(3) BCR 779 and relied on by the counsel for the respondent no.1 in this regard. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE