1 W.P.No.9320/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.9320 OF 2011. 1. Vikas Shankarrao Shimpi, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Ranchodnagar,Panchmukhi Hanuman, Jalgaon, Tal and Dist.Jalgaon. 2. Santosh Rambhau Khorkhede, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.10/2, Danekarnagar, Pimprala, Jalgaon. 3. Machindra Digamber Thakre, Age major, occ.Business, R/o at and post Tamaswadi, Tq.Parola, Dist.Jalgaon. 4. Sau.Jyshree Onkar Patil, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Bhagwannagar, Near Jivannagar, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist.Jalgaon. 5. Chindha Dault Khairnar, Age major, occ.Business, R/o at and post Tamaswadi, Tq.Parola, Dist.Jalgaon. 6. Sau.Meera Bhikaji Mhale, Age : Triveni Housing Society Daulatnagar, Jalgaon, Tq and Dist.Jalgaon. 7. Sau.Shoba Kailas Koli, Age major,Occ.Business, R/o Snehal Housing Society, Jalgaon, Tq and Dist. Jalgaon. 2 W.P.No.9320/11 8. Pradeep Eknath Jangle, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Gurukul Housing Society, Jalgaon, Tq.and Dist.Jalgaon. 9. Bhanudas Jagannath Sonwane, Age 47 years, Occ.Business, R/o 48, Gayatrinagar, Shiroli Road, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon. 10. Dinesh Bhikuji Niwane, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Moinnagar, Jalgaon, Tq.and Dist.Jalgaon. 11. Bhima Ramu Bhoi, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Transportnagar, behind Hotel Forseason, Jlgon, Tq. and Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Arun Dhansingh Patil, Age major, occ.Business, R/o Shivaji Chowk, Harivitthal Nagar, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 2. Ashok Baghirath Bhalerao, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Shivaji Chowk, Harivitthal Nagar, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 3. Tulshiram Sakharam Pawar, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.24, Survey No.251, Rameshwar Colony, Meharun, Jalgoan, Dist.Jalgaon. 4. Govinda S/o Nathu Kore, Age major, occ.Business, R/o Plot No.24, Survey No.251, Rameshwar Colony, Meharun, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 3 W.P.No.9320/11 5. Rajendra Ramdas Wagh, Age major, occ.Business, R/o Near Sai Baba Mandir, Zilla Peth, Vivekanandnagar, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 6. Rajendra Zipru Patil, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Shivsagar, Ramnagar, Near Water Supply Office, Meharan, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 7. Jagruti Mitra Mandal, through Shri Shivaji Chowk, Hari Vatthalnagar,Jalgaon. 8. Dhudku Lala Mahale, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.9, D Sambhajinagar, Tal and Dist.Jalgaon. 9. Suresh S/o Gangadar Bagul, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.24, Sarve No.251, Ramashwar Colony, Maharan, Tal. and Dist.Jalgaon. 10. Uday Bhikanrao Wagh, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Ganesh Oppset, Near R.R.School, Tq.and Dist.Jalgaon. 11. Machindra S/o Digamber Thakare, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o C/o D.L.Mahale, Triveni Housing Society, Daulatnagar, Tq.and Dist. Jalgaon. 12. Sow. Shaileja Suresh Bagul, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.24, Srve No.251, Ramashwar Colony, Maharan, Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon. 13. Sow.Lalita Dhudku Mahale, 4 W.P.No.9320/11 Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.9, D Sambhajinagar, Tq. and Dist.Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.C.Sant, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.L.V.Sangeet, advocatefor the Respondent Nos.1 to 6. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 16.12.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. At the outset, Mr.Sant, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete Respondent Nos.8 to 13. Leave granted at the risk of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that Respondent No.7 is the Trust. The present Respondent No.1 claims to be the President of the Trust. The Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are 5 W.P.No.9320/11 represented. As such no notice to Respondent No. 7 is necessary. 4. The present Respondent Nos.1 to 6 have filed proceedings U/s 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, regarding change. The present petitioners filed objection petition to the said change report. The present Respondent Nos.1 to 6 were directed by the Asstt.Charity Commissioner to take steps i.e. notices were directed to be issued to these objectors i.e. the present petitioners on payment of the necessary process fees. It appears that Respondent Nos.1 to 6 did not pay process fees and the notices to the present petitioners were not issued. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed an application purportedly U/s 73-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleading them as parties. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 5. Mr.Sangit, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the petitioners are not 6 W.P.No.9320/11 the members of the Trust. The change report proceedings which were filed pursuant to the claim of the present petitioners of having become members is rejected. As their status as members of the Trust has been negatived, they are not necessary parties to the change report proceedings. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Herbertsons Ltd. Vs. Kishore Rajaram Chhabria and others" reported in 2000 (3) Mh.L.J. 550. The learned counsel submits that the present Respondents are the dominus litis of their case and as the present petitioners are not necessary parties, they can not be added as parties. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Devchand Constructions Vs.Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao and another" reported in 2006 (5) Mh.L.J.644. According to the learned counsel the Asstt. Charity Commissioner has rightly passed the order and no case for interference is made out in Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 W.P.No.9320/11 6. Mr.Sant, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have assailed the order of Asstt. Charity Commissioner, rejecting the change report and accepting membership of the petitioners by filing an appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner bearing No.23/2010 and the same is pending. The learned counsel contends that the scope of Section 73-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, is much wider than order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. According to the learned counsel when the objection petitions were filed by the petitioners and notices were directed to be issued on the same, it should be presumed that the petitioners are necessary parties. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the orders and the application. 8. From the record, it appears that initially objections have been filed by the petitioners to the change report. The cognizance 8 W.P.No.9320/11 of the same was taken by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner. However, it appears that the present Respondents did not take any steps and thereafter the application has been filed by the petitioners for impleading them as parties. The Asstt. Charity Commissioner while rejecting the application has not given any finding that the petitioners are not the members. The order only states that the membership of the petitioners is not certain. 9. Once the cognizance of the objection petition filed by the petitioners is already taken by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner then in such circumstances, only on the count that the present Respondents did not take further steps for issuance of the notices to the present petitioners who had filed objection would not be sufficient to reject the application of the present petitioners. The petitioners have shown interest in the said Trust and even the appeal against the order rejecting the change report about their membership is pending. 9 W.P.No.9320/11 10. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioners for impleading them as parties to the said change report proceedings is allowed. 11. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp932011