1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11499 OF 2010 Subhash s/o. Appasaheb Markad .. Petitioner Versus The Assistant Charity Commissioner Ahmednagar and others. .. Respondents --- Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 Mr. D.R. Markad, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2011 PER COURT :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, prays for withdrawal of this writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application before the Assistant 2 Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar, challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 as a trustee of Shree Kanhoba @ Kanifnath Deosthan Trust at village Madhi, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. Mr. Deshmukh submits that the objections to the appointment of respondent No.3 though were raised by the petitioner, the same were not considered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, while passing the impugned order dated 4.12.2010. The petitioner in the writ petition has contended that respondent No.3 does not belong to Rabhaji branch of the Markad family. 3] Mr. Hon, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Mr. D.R. Markad, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 8, have no objection for allowing the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty as prayed for. 4] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the following order would meet the ends of justice :- [i] The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn against respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 to 8. In so far as respondent No.3 – Kishor Mohan Markad, is concerned, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. [ii] All contentions of the parties are kept open. While granting liberty, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition against respondent No.3. 3 [iii] The Assistant Charity Commissioner, shall deal with the review application, if filed by the petitioner, within 4 weeks from today, on merits, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by this order. It is made clear that so far as respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are concerned, the impugned order dated 4.12.2010 stands confirmed. In so far as respondent No.3 is concerned, the order of Assistant Charity Commissioner is confirmed subject to the order that will be passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, on the review application that will be filed by the petitioner, in pursuance of this order. It is further made clear that all the trustees appointed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, including respondent NO.3, are allowed to function as trustees, subject to the orders that will be passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, on the review application in respect of respondent No.3. 5] With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. Civil application No. 386 of 2011 for intervention stands disposed of. [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/