1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5911 OF 2009 Vinayak s/o Kisan Mule Petitioner Versus The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Division, Latur and others Respondents Mr.S.T.Ghute, advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.J.R.Patil, advocate for Respondents No.3(a) and 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6231 OF 2009 Vinayak s/o Kisan Mule Petitioner Versus The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Division, Latur and others Respondents Mr.S.T.Ghute, advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.J.R.Patil, advocate for Respondents No.3(a) and 4 to 6. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8218 OF 2009 Vinayak s/o Kisan Mule Petitioner Versus The Joint Charity Commissioner, 2 Latur Division, Latur and others Respondents Mr.S.T.Ghute, advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.J.R.Patil, advocate for Respondents No.3(a) and 4 to 13. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 30th April, 2010. P.C.: 1 An application tendered by Respondent No.3(a) seeking his impleadment as a reporting trustee in the pending proceedings before Assistant Charity Commissioner initiated under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act came to be allowed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in view of the order passed on 21.06.2007. Said order was challenged by presenting two appeals to the Joint Charity Commissioner. However, both appeals came to be turned down by holding that same are not maintainable. Said order of impleadment of Respondent No.3(a), in the pending proceedings, which is confirmed by appellate authority, is subject matter of challenge in these petitions. 2 It is contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that Respondent No.3(a) is not member of the Trust and has no interest in the affairs of the Trust. It is, thus, contended that impleadment of Respondent No.3(a) in the proceedings was not warranted. 3 Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3(a) has supported the impugned order. 3 4 I have perused impugned order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner. It transpires that impleadment of Respondent No.3(a) is sought on the ground that he has been elected as Trustee. It is also contended by Respondent No.3(a) that he is member of the Trust and is also a member of Managing Committee. These facts are controverted by petitioner. Section 73A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act permits impleadment of a party to the proceeding if such party exhibits his interest in the affairs of the Trust. On perusal of the record, it transpires that Respondent No.3(a) has sufficiently exhibited his interest in the affairs of the Trust. The order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous. No interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions are devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petitions are, therefore, rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp591109