ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1051 OF 2009 PETITION NO.1051 OF 2009 PETITION NO.1051 OF 2009 Mr.Cyrus G. Mazkoori ...Petitioner Vs. The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of India, New Delhi and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Cyrus G. Mazkoori, Petitioner in-person. Mr.Birendra Saraf & Mr.Darshan R. Mehta i/by M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th February, 2009. : 11th February, 2009. : 11th February, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09/06/2008 whereby the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune, has allowed the Application below Exhibits 23, 24 and 25 in Application No.10/2007 under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, whereby opponent Nos. 1,2 and 4 have been deleted from the array of opponents. 2. Admittedly, the Trust in question is Respondent No.3 i.e. New Era High School Committee which is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The ( 2 ) Application under Section 41-D was filed by the Petitioner- person interested, wherein the basic relief is against the Trustees. 3. Opponent Nos. 1,2 and 4, in view of the relief as prayed, are not necessary parties for adjudication of the issues as raised in the Application. Apart from this in an earlier proceedings filed by the Petitioner and as recorded in paragraph No. 6 in the impugned order, which in my view additional factor, not to interfere in the impugned order. 4. Paragraph 6 is reproduced as under:- "6. The application is under Section 41-D and when such application is moved, the Applicant is under obligation to make out a case, so as to attract Section 41-D and/or on proof, then the Trustees can be removed and that is the scope of Section 41-D. In the present application, the Applicant by making certain grounds prayed for removal of Opponent No.3 (a) to (h) and therefore, the application centers around the Opponent No.3 and not against the Opponent Nos. 1,2 and 4. The Opponent No. 1,2 and 4 may be having some concern either direct or indirect, but that cannot be the cause for the impleading them as a party. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that previously there was an attempt to implead those parties and that attempt was turn down by the then Joint Charity Commissioner. Even the Hon’ble High Court in Writ bearing No.2173/93 ruled that, members of the Governing Body and National Spiritual Assembly are uncalled for in those ( 3 ) proceedings. The observation of His Lordship are to the following effect "From the record, as it stands, the Respondent No. 8 to 16 are not shown as Trustees of the public Trust. It is on this ground the authority also concluded that the Trustees of the New Era High School Committee are responsible under Section 41-D and members of the Governing Body and National Spiritual Assembly are uncalled for in those proceedings. The observations appear to be correct on the basis on record as it stands today"." 5. The Petitioner has also made a submission that there are various documents which reflects the names of opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and therefore, in view of those documents i.e. PTR Extract, Schedule, Rules and Regulations, the property card extract, they are the necessary parties to the proceedings. The Petitioner himself in his application referred those parties as formal parties. This submission is also unacceptable, once we consider the scope and the purpose of Section 43-D of the Act, I see no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. 6. Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)