IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2378 OF 2009 PETITION NO.2378 OF 2009 PETITION NO.2378 OF 2009 Charu K. Mehta ... Petitioner V/s. Rekha H. Sheth & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Venkatesh Dhond a/w. Mr.Hetal Thakore i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr.S.G. Aney a/w. Mr.Pranav Badheka and Shane Sapeco i/b. Hariani & Co. for Respondent Nos.3 to 5. Mr.P.P. Kakade, AGP, for Respondent Nos.6 to 8. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2009. : 15TH APRIL, 2009. : 15TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region, Bombay condoning the delay in filing the change report. According to the petitioner, the delay of 11 years ought not to have been condoned by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and in fact the authority should have dismissed the application for condoning the delay. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that sufficient reasons have not been set out in the application for condoning the delay in filing the change report and, therefore, the application ought to have been rejected. He further submits that the circumstances in the present case suggest that the first respondent who was the reporting trustee claimed to have sufficient knowledge of the change having been effected by including the respondent no.2 as a permanent trustee in 1995. He submits that in these circumstances, the respondent no.1 or in any case the respondent no.2 ought to have filed the change report immediately thereafter and in any case should not have waited for 11 years to file the change report. He further submits that it was only after a letter was issued on 14th April, 2006 to the officials of the Hospital that respondent no.2 was not a trustee, that the change report was filed on 15th April, 2006. Mr.Dhond, therefore, submits that all these circumstances indicate that there was no ground or which the Assistant Charity Commissioner should have condoned the inordinate delay and directed the matter to proceed on merits. 2. Mr.Aney appearing for respondent no.2 submits that it is now well settled that although a change report is to be filed within 90 days of the change having been effected, this period is not mandatory. He relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.4994 of 2000 in which a delay of 40 years in filing the change report has been condoned. 3. Mr.Dhond submits that the delay in the aforesaid writ petition was condoned since there was no dispute as to whether any change had taken place and because no change report had been filed after 1960. He submits that the facts in this case indicate that change reports were filed subsequent to 1995, in which year the alleged inclusion of respondent no.2 as a permanent trustee has occurred. 4. In my opinion, the order condoning the delay is a discretionary order which has been passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The order is not perverse and therefore there is no need to interfere with the same. As regards the observations made by the Charity Commissioner in the impugned order in respect of the signatures of the reporting trustee or the petitioner or the respondent no.5, in my opinion, these observations cannot and should not influence the Assistant Charity Commissioner while passing any order on merits. 5. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. However, the Assistant Charity Commissioner will consider the change report on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order condoning the delay. .....