cp140.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 14O OF 2011 Ajit s/o Simratmal Bora .. PETITIONER VERSUS Gokul Shivlal Gandhi & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.M. Gholap, advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3 rd MAY, 2011. PER COURT : 1 Petitioner, who is one of the members of the trust, is alleging non- observance of the directives issued by the Jt. Charity Commissioner on 9-8-2010 in proceeding initiated under section 41-E of the Bombay Public Trust Act. 2 In the order passed by the Jt. Charity Commissioner, it is recorded that the proposed meeting is postponed till the next date. Notices were directed to be issued to the respondents therein. It is the contention of the petitioner cp140.11 2 that respondents have violated the directives issued by the Jt. Charity Commissioner and conducted the meeting as scheduled on 11-8-2010. In the meeting held on 11-8-2010, election of the new Managing Committee was also held. It is also further informed that the respondents have submitted change report requesting to record the change in accordance with section 22 of the Act. Petitioner herein is also raising objection for recording of change by filing appropriate objection before the Jt. Charity Commissioner. It is thus contended that there is violation of the directives issued by the Jt. Charity Commissioner. 3 I have perused the order. Apart from the order being cryptic, it is recorded therein that the meeting has been postponed till the next date. The directives are also not clear and capable of carrying the meaning as contended by the petitioner. Apart from this, the petitioner has taken recourse to a remedy provided under the Statute i.e. raising objection to the change by presenting objection application in the proceeding initiated under section 24 of the Act. In these circumstances, when an effective remedy is provided under the Statute and if that remedy is being persued, this court need not take cognizance of the alleged violation. Reliance can cp140.11 3 be placed on the judgment in the matter of Mohammad SalamAnamul Haque vs. S.A. Azmi and others reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 246 in this regard. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb