(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 4065 of 2009 Vasant s/o. Bhivsing Pawar. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, through Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Charity Commissioner Office, Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon, & 12 others. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 1ST JULY 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd June 2009, passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Returning Officer, thereby inserting names of respondent nos.3 to 12 in the voters' list for election to the management of the Trust, by name, Magasvargiya Vidhyarthee Shikshan Mandal, Pimpalgaon (Hare) (2) (Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon). 2. Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that this court had approved the list of 101 voters and, as such, inclusion of respondent nos.3 to 12 in the list of voters is not permissible. 3. From the perusal of the order dated 22nd June 2009, it can be seen that the respondent no.2, Returning Officer, has found that this court in the proceedings before it, in the year 1991, had approved the list of voters which was of 101 voters. It has been found that there was no change in so far as members at serial nos.1 to 101 in the primary list of members, is concerned. In the subsequent paragraph, the respondent no. 2 has given reasons for including members at serial nos.102 to 110 in the primary list of members, in the voters' list. 4. Whether the reasons given by the respondent no.2 for inclusion of respondent nos.3 to 12 in the voters' list are correct, or not, cannot be gone into, in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, it involves adjudication of various disputed matters of fact. 5. In any event, after the elections are over and the change report is filed, the objections regarding eligibility of particular voter can be raised and the competent authority under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, would decide the said objections on its own merits. Any interference, at this stage, would forestall the electoral process. (3) 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find that a case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp4065