SSK/911/sb 1 WP.1891.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1891 OF 2011 Shri Praveen Kumar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Shri Pyarelal Prajapati & Ors. ...Respondents Shri A. A. Kumbhakoni, Counsel i/b. Mr. Suresh S. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Khadapkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. R. M. Pethe, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 16, 18 & 19. Mr. Ganeshan, Advocate for respondent nos. 20 to 25 & 27. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos. 28 & 29. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Khadapkar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Pethe, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 16, 18 & 19, Mr. Ganeshan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 20 to 25 & 27 and Ms. Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos. 28 & 29. 2. The petitioner by filing the aforesaid petition challenged the order dated 7th January, 2011 passed by learned Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai. By the said order, the petitioners’ application under Rule 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951 for SSK/911/sb 2 WP.1891.11 transferring Change Report Nos.228 of 2008, 376 of 2008, 325 of 2010, Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2010 and Suo Motu Inquiry No. 2 of 2009 from the file of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane Region, Thane to any other Assistant Charity Commissioner was rejected by the learned Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai. 3. The transfer application is filed on the ground of bias on the part of Assistant Charity Commissioner against the petitioner. It is submitted that this bias is apparent if one peruses the earlier orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the proceedings mentioned above. The petitioner apprehends that he may not get justice from the Assistant Charity Commissioner, and therefore, request as stated above is made. 4. The learned Charity Commissioner rejected the said application of the petitioner mainly on three grounds viz. 1. Orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on various applications have not been challenged before the higher authority by the petitioner and the same have been accepted. 2. If the transfer as prayed for by the petitioner is granted same will amount to casting aspersions on the integrity of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 3. All the proceedings are part heard and they are at the stage of cross examination of the petitioner. SSK/911/sb 3 WP.1891.11 5. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the petitioner, took me through various proceedings filed by the petitioner. He also took me through the intervention application filed by the respondent and various orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. On the basis of these orders, he tried to convince that the petitioner’s apprehension cannot said to be uncalled for. 6. Having gone through the proceedings before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, I find that three change reports, one miscellaneous application and one suo motu proceeding are pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner issued notices to the outgoing trustees despite their no objection. It is also grievance of the petitioner that Intervention Application of some of the respondents was though rejected, they are permitted to file documents. It is further stated that impleadment of some of the respondents was not only allowed but they were allowed to cross-examine the petitioner. The petitioner’s applications to withdraw the above orders on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice are also rejected. 7. It is settled position that the Charity Commissioner is the custodian of trust properties. The Charity Commissioner has to keep in mind interest of the Trust. In these circumstances, if the Assistant Charity Commissioner has permitted some of the respondents to file documents SSK/911/sb 4 WP.1891.11 and allowed impleadment of some of the respondents with further direction to them to cross examine the petitioner, then no fault can be found with the said orders. These orders have not been challenged by the petitioner before the higher authorities and the petitioner has accepted the same. Therefore, the petitioner now cannot rely upon those orders to support his prayer for transfer of the proceedings. In my view it is difficult, on the basis of the said orders, to arrive at a conclusion that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has passed those orders with biased mind. 8. The proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner are at advanced stage of hearing. There is only one Assistant Charity Commissioner- Mr. S. M. Kale at Thane. It is settled law that a transfer application cannot be allowed lightly as the same casts aspersions on the integrity of the concerned officer. The applicant is also required to give cogent reasons in support of his case. Having gone through the papers, in my opinion, the petitioner has not made out a case for transfer. Taking over all circumstances into consideration, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 9 At the request of Mr. Kumbhakoni, the stay granted by the Charity Commissioner is continued for a period of ten days from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)