1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2010 (Shri Bhaskar s/o Narayanrao Kale & Anr. vs. Shri Yeshavant Mahadeorao Vairagade & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JULY 20, 2010. Heard Shri Bari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sohoni, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 7. The learned District Judge has appointed Trustees as per clause 9 of the settled scheme and rejected Application No. 3 of 2004 filed by the present petitioners. There is a finding by the learned District Judge that the applicants in Application No. 3 of 2004 have not produced any material to show the association or dedication to the Trust. Shri Bari, learned counsel argues that when Trustees are being appointed, there has to be a judicial enquiry. He is relying upon a judgment in support of his contentions. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition. At this stage, the learned counsel has stopped the dictation to show to this Court said entitlement. However, though this Court has waited for some time, the learned counsel is not in a position to show any such 2 locus. In the circumstances, as the finding of fact reached by learned District Judge is neither shown to be erroneous or perverse, no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. It is made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by scheme as framed or because of any wrongful management of the Trust, as alleged, they have other remedies open, and order of District Judge or of this Court shall not come in their way in such proceedings. JUDGE *GS.