1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1306 OF 2010. Satish V. Narharshettiwar and another -: versus :- Shankar Deosthan Sindi (Meghe) and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2010. Heard Shri K.R. Lule, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 8 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 9 and 10. Petitioners claim to be highest bidders in offers for sale invited by respondent no.1 Public Trust. The said Public Trust thereafter sought permission under Section 36[1][a] of the Bombay Public Trust Act to sell the property and those proceedings remain pending for quite some time. Two of the Trustees who had consented to the sale filed objections before the Charity Commissioner. The petitioners also filed application for intervention and alleged that the President of the Trust is abusing his position and was trying to sell the property involved, to some third person. In this background, behind the back of the petitioners an application for dismissal of sale proceedings was moved by the President 2 on 21.12.2009 and on the very same date, though the petitioner was absent, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur has granted permission to withdraw the application for permission. Shri Johrapurkar, learned counsel for petitioners contends that rights of petitioners were created and hence they were entitled to purchase. The reason given in their written objection by the two of the consenting Trustees are inconsistent and according to him also false. His further stand is, in absence of permission the petitioners cannot proceed further in the matter and hence when application for intervention filed by the petitioners was very much pending, without deciding that application, the permission to withdraw could not have been given behind their back. To point out scope of powers available to the Charity Commissioner in such matters, reliance is being placed on the Full Bench judgment reported at 2007 [3] BCR 7 (Sailesh Developers and others .vrs. Joint Charity Commissioner and others). Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 8 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 9 and 10 support the impugned order. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel states that the Trust has infact passed a resolution on 27.03.2010 and decided not to sell the property to any body. He further invites attention to the unequivocal statement made on affidavit by respondent nos. 2 to 8 before this court, stating that the property will not be sold in near future and respondent no.1 Trust has no such intention. 3 In the face of the said resolution, it is apparent that the challenge in present Writ Petition has become infructuous. In any case, the proceeding for permission were initiated by respondent nos. 1 to 8 and they have withdrawn it. It is obvious that in these proceedings it is not necessary for this Court to observe anything on other contentions raised by Shri Johrapurkar. The rights and entitlement of petitioners can be worked out before the appropriate forum in appropriate jurisdiction. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.