1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2266 of 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5732 of 2008 Charu K. Mehta ...Applicant v/s. Vijay K. Mehta & ors. ...Respondents Shri Rohan Kelkar a/w. Pranav Sampat i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the applicant in CA No. 2266/09. Shane Sapeco i/b. Hariani & co. for the respondents 11 & 12. Ms. Sneha Madinar for respondent no.4. Shri Dinyar Madon, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Sanjay Jain & Atul Daga i/b. Wadia Ghandy & co. for respondent no.1. Mr. Ashwin Sakkolkar i/b. Paras Kuhad & Associates for respondent no.13 to 15 in CA 2266/2009. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- September 11, 2009. P.C. By this application, the applicant who was Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 5732/2008 has applied for clarification of my order dated 9/9/2008 which in turn has modified the order passed by the Charity Commissioner while partly allowing the Writ Petition. The clarification sought in this application is that the applicant herein who was respondent no. 1 in the Writ Petition, is required and entitled to be heard and should be given an opportunity for the 2 same when the Respondents in the original proceedings would seek approval of the JCC before taking any policy decisions and/or entering into any financial transactions in regard to the said Trust in terms of direction issued by this Court in order dated 9/9/2008. The background in which the present application has been filed is that the applicant preferred application before the Charity Commissioner Exhibit 105, praying for certain reliefs therein. The said application was disposed of by recording following order- “Heard. As per the directions of Hon. High Court the charged trustees, if any take policy decision or decisions regarding financial transaction they will have to obtain prior approval of this authority. In view of it, no further directions are required to be given. The grievance raised by the applicant, can be considered when the trustees move this authority for approval. It is not necessary to issue directions with regard to the meeting to be held today. Hence, application is disposed of.” (emphasis supplied) 2. According to the applicant, in view of reason recorded by the JCC, it is necessary to clarify my order dated 9/9/2008. In the first place, there is no confusion in the above quoted order. In any case, the applicant subsequently filed formal application Exhibit 107 in view of the liberty granted by the JCC in the above said order. The said application has been rejected by a reasoned order dated 30/1/2009. Against the said decision, the applicant has filed Writ 3 Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 2562/2009. Thus understood, all contentions which are available to the applicant will have to be considered on its own merits in the said Writ Petition. 3. The Application is disposed of accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)