IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.179 of 2009. FIRST APPEAL NO.179 of 2009. FIRST APPEAL NO.179 of 2009. Janata Shikshan Sanstha & Others ..Appellants (Original Applicants) versus Shri Ramakant Suryajirao Darkar & Others ..Respondents (Original Opponents) Shri R.M.Pethe, Rajdeep S. Khadapkar for Appellant Shri N.V. Walavalkar i/b. Vilas R. Tapkir for the respondent No.1 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 6th April, 2009. DATED : 6th April, 2009. DATED : 6th April, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsels on both the sides. By this First Appeal, the appellants challenge the Order passed by the learned District Judge, dated 23.1.2009 and order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner dated 11.11.2008. I have extensively heard Counsels on both the sides. My attention was drawn to the Order dated 20.7.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.489 of 1990 wherein certain directions were given to the Charity Commissioner Pune Region, Pune, as to resolve the controversy after hearing the parties, as also to give appropriate directions to the Election Officer about holding of elections. The Charity -2- Commissioner, Pune Region was also obliged to declare the election programme within two weeks of finalisation of voters list. It is seen that the Election Programme was passed and elections have been conducted. Change report is filed and the said change report has been rejected by the Order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the said Order is confirmed by the learned District Judge. 2. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the enrolment which was to be done pursuant to the Order dated 20.7.2001 is not been done by the Concerned Officer in as much as of the job which was required to be done by the Joint Charity Commissioner has been done by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, because the Joint Charity Commissioner directed the Deputy Charity Commissioner to perform the job in terms of the Order passed in the writ petition. This has been considered by the learned District Judge as something which is objectionable and the reference to that is found in paragraph 14 of the judgment impugned. 3. Arguments were advanced by the learned -3- Counsel for the appellants that the job was done by the Charity Commissioner in the light of the observations of the Court dated 13.10.2006 in Writ Petition No. 6421 of 2006. I have gone through the said order. I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the advocate for the appellants. 4. In my view, if the Order dated 20.7.2001 required a particular officer to do a particular act, the said act ought to have been done by the said Officer i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner. That Order was obtained by consent and therefore the said Joint Charity Commissioner could not have asked his subordinate namely Deputy Charity Commissioner to perform the said job. If said job was done by another officer who was not authorised to do the said job, whatever has been done by the Officer will have to be treated in nullity. The learned Single Judge has observed this in paragraph 14 of his order. Once the job done by the Deputy Charity Commissioner is to be termed as illegal whatever is done subsequent to that will also have to be treated as illegal and that has been treated as ground for not accepting the change report. -4- 5. For the reasons aforesaid, in my view the challenge will not sustain and the appeal will have to be dismissed. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there shall be no Order as to costs. iii. Ad-interim order passed on the Civil Application stands vacated in view of dismissal of the appeal. iv. Status quo as regards the persons who are presently running the affairs of the trust will continue till 27.4.2009. .v Parties are free to approach the appropriate forum for further order as to who will be able to perform and take care of the trust. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)