1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 4247/20007 (Ideal Education Society vs. Joint Charity Commissioner Nagpur ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI , J. DATED: 1st February, 2008. *** Heard Mr. Gosavi, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. A.S. Sonare, learned AGP for respondent. 2. The present petition impugns the order passed by Respondent-sole in so far as the condition no. 4 in the operative part of the order dated 12th Sept. 2006 is concerned. By the said paragraph, it is directed that body of fit persons shall not be entitled to take policy decisions including decisions regarding appointment, transfer and termination of employees of the institutions of the Trust, decisions regarding making additional construction, decision regarding borrowing and providing hand loan to trust and institution of trust without prior written permission of this authority. 2 3. Mr. Gosavi, learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to the Clause 4 of the operative order, a grave difficulty has arisen in managing the affairs of the Trust. He has given one example. It is submitted that the one Dr. Jobi George has resigned and joined some other College. In that view of the matter, after obtaining the requisite permission from the University an application was made to the respondent-authority for grant of permission to fill up the post. It is further submitted that the said permission was sought in view of the direction issued by the University. It is submitted that instead of granting said permission, the respondent has directed to consider the prayer of said Dr.George for grant of lien. It is submitted that such a prayer cannot be granted in view of the Ordinances of the University. 4. However, it is seen that the case of Dr. George is an solitary case. It cannot be said that the impugned direction which imposes restriction is unreasonable. No doubt, while granting permisssion terms in accordance with clause 4, the respondent is also expected to consider the relevant Ordinances, requirement of the college and communications in that respect issued by Competent Authorities from time to 3 time, including the University and Joint Director of Education. 5. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. It is needles to state that the petitioner would be at liberty to again approach the respondent for necessary permission and the respondent no.1 would consider the same in the light of the observations made hereinabove. JUDGE sahare