1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO:45/2009 (Rajaram Titarmare vs. Shri Anand Mahadeo Padole and others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr M V Samarth, Adv.for petitioner Mr V K Paliwal, Adv.for R-1,,5,6,7 Shr D B Patel AGP for R-8 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 09, 2009. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 3.12.2008 allowing an application filed by the respondents 1 and 7 under section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and issuing directions to the Managing Committee recorded on Schedule-I to manage and administer the Trust by majority decision till the disposal of the change report enquiry bearing No. 1223/2006 and 1326/2006. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents as also the impugned order, it is clear that there were two rival groups claiming to be in the management of the Trust. One Change report was filed by the group to which the petitioners belong and another change report was filed by the group to which the respondent No.1 and 2 belong. The change reports were filed in the year 2006 and were pending before the Assistant 2 Charity Commissioner. In view of the dispute in that regard, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Asst. Charity Commissioner, Bhandara, thought it fit to direct the recorded trustees of Schedule I to manage and administer the trust by majority decision, till the disposal of the two change reports. The Asst. Charity Commissioner, further, in the interest of justice, directed the petitioner not to take any decision without prior permission of the President of the Trust i.e. Shri Vijay Singanjude, till both the change reports were decided. The order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is just and proper, as in the aforesaid circumstances when two rival groups were claiming to be in office, the Asst. Charity Commissioner rightly thought it fit that the recorded trustees on Schedule I managed the affairs of the trust. 4. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Asst. Charity Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to appoint a new body to administer the trust, is liable to be rejected as in the instant case, the ACC had not appointed any new ad-hoc body to manage the affairs of the trust and since there were two rival groups claiming to be in office the ACC, had directed that the recorded trustees of Schedule-I should manage the affairs of the Trust. The judgments reported in 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 278 and 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. Page 48, and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, not be applicable to the facts of this case as in those cases, this Court had observed that the ACC did not have jurisdiction to appoint a new Committee for smooth administration of the Trust or appoint an Administrator on the Trust. 3 5. In the result, the Writ petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare