1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1040 of 2008 [Dr. A.N. Shrote & ors. Vs. Asstt. Charity Commr. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.P. Lala, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.L. Bhure, Advocate for respondent no.2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 25th March,2008. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners filed two applications, namely Exhs.202 and 234. 3. By first application [Exh.202], petitioners have prayed for staying the proceedings until decision on various Change Reports. 4. Admittedly, the proceedings are for formulation of a Scheme. 5. By Exh.234, petitioners had applied for review and recalling of preliminary order passed by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner on 11th April, 2005 recording a finding that in the better interest of the Institution, formulation of a 2 scheme was necessary. Second prayer in Exh.234 was for impleadment of the present petitioners as interested persons. 6. Learned Trial Judge has partly allowed application [Exh.202] and allowed impleadment, however, rejected application [Exh.234] and declined the prayer for recalling of order dated 11th April, 2005. 7. Though the orders have a different tone, the purpose, object behind it and reasons which have impelled passing those are common and it shall suffice to record common reasons therefor. 8. It is seen that in the application for framing of a scheme, it was brought to the notice of Asstt. Charity Commissioner that the existing Constitution requires elections to be held year to year and this is creating numerous difficulties in working, and a situation analogous to anarchy has come into play. 9. Admittedly, as alleged by the petitioners in oral submissions, large number of Change Reports [about thirteen in number] are pending. This very fact itself is eloquent enough to demonstrate that framing of a scheme for smooth working of the Society is necessary. In view of this matter, Asstt. Charity Commissioner was right in refusing to recall the 3 order dated 11th April, 2005. 10. Once framing of a scheme is a necessity of time, staying the scheme proceedings till decision on Change Reports is giving a go-bye to the preliminary decision already arrived at by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner. 11. The manner in which the petition has been pressed and pursued leads to create an impression that the petitioners must be accessory to those in the reigns of the Trust, and are keen to see that the craving and efforts for better management of the Society should be defeated, and for that purpose, the petitioners are keen on stalling the proceedings for framing of a scheme and want that those should go to the stage one and remain pending cine die. 12. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the petition is neither genuine nor bona fide. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or error as to exercise of jurisdiction. 13. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 4