1 W.P.No.6944/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6944 OF 2011. 1. Gurudas Vitthal Kadam, Age 54 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Betavat Bk. Tq.Jamner, Dist.Jalgaon. 2. Mohan Madhavrao Bhoite, Age 35 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Betavat Bk.Tq.Jamner, Dist.Jalgaon. 3. Laxman Barku Patil, Age 55 years,Occ.Agri., R/o Betavat Bk. Tq.Jamner, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Mumbai. 2.The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon in Ambedkar Market, Jalgaon. 3. Shriram Mandir and Maruti Mandir Trust Betavat Bk. Tq.Jamner, Dist.Jalgaon. 4. Prabhakar Omkar Nehete, Age 60 years, Occ.Agriculture, 2 W.P.No.6944/11 R/o Betavat Bk. Tq.Jamner, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.M.Gholap, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.11.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The Respondents have filed the change report on 6.12.2010. The present petitioners filed an application to implead them as parties in the said proceedings on 2.8.2011. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3 W.P.No.6944/11 4. Mr.Yawalkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application has been rejected by the authority without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The application was filed and on the same day it was rejected. According to the learned counsel, the reasoning given by the authority is improper. It was improper for the authority to observe that merely payment of certain gift or donations, the person can not become trustee or interested person. The learned counsel contends that in the application it has been averred that they are also the devotees, that has not been considered. 5. Mr.Gholap, learned counsel for the Respondents strenuously contends that the application is as vague as it can be. The application was given on 2.8.2011 i.e. after a long slumber of eight months. No purpose would be served by joining the petitioners, inasmuch as the application does not spell out the grounds on which they want to object the change report nor the alleged rights. The learned counsel further contends that on the basis of such an 4 W.P.No.6944/11 application, no orders can be passed allowing the application. 6. Section 73-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, gives right to a person interested to be joined as a party to the proceedings on such terms and conditions as the authorities may deem fit and appropriate. The applicant states that the petitioners are devotees and so also have given donations and gifts. The concept of interested person will have to be judged in light of the said averments i.e. whether the petitioners were devotees and its effect. While passing the impugned order, the same has not been taken into consideration. It is a fundamental and cardinal principle of Civil Jurisprudence that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given. It is for the applicant to satisfy the authority about his alleged rights and the authority is required to dispel the contentions by passing a speaking order. So also opportunity deserves to be given to the Respondents to file the say. 7. In light of the above, the impugned 5 W.P.No.6944/11 order is quashed and set aside. The present Respondents shall be entitled to file their say to the said objection and the authority shall decide the said application filed by the petitioners for joining them as parties afresh. 8. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. The parties shall appear before the authority on 21.11.2011 and the authority shall thereafter decide the said application within a period of fifteen (15) days. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp694411 6 W.P.No.6944/11