/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6329 OF 2007 Rajendra Annasaheb Aglave & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Shrishail Sakhare for Petitioners. Mr.Prasad Kulkarni for Respondent No.1, 4, 8 & 10. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Respondent No.2, 3, 5, 7, 9. Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, G.P. for State. ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4156 OF 2007 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shri.Ramesh B. Jadhav & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.B. Kulkarni for Petitioners. None for Respondents. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 15th APRIL, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondents. / 2/ 2. Petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on an Inquiry Application No.632 of 2007 which was filed by two trustees, one Shri.Ramesh Baburao Jadhav and Shri.Sahadev Govind Kashid. Grievance of the Petitioners is that though they are office bearers of the Trust, they have not been heard in the said application. It is submitted that impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that two schemes were filed by two rival groups and sanction order was passed. Ten trustees were appointed to manage affairs of the Trust. It is an admitted position as of today that said scheme which was sanctioned by the Assistant Charity Commissioner has not been set aside. It is further an admitted position that Petitioners and other Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4156 of 2007 claim to be new trustees who were appointed in the meeting. Change reports are still pending. In my view, as long as scheme which is sanctioned by the competent authority is not set aside, the Petitioners do not have any locus to challenge the directions which are given by the Assistant Charity Commissioner U/s.41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Petitioners have challenged the schemes by filing Misc. Application in the District Court. / 3/ However, no orders have been passed. In view of this, as long as scheme is in operation, the Petitioners would have no locus and therefore, the Assistant Charity Commissioner did not issue notice to these Petitioners. There is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Hence, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, all the contentions of both the parties raised in both the schemes shall be kept open and the Petitioners shall be at liberty to pursue the Misc. Application which is pending before the District Court. . Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. ( V.M. KANADE, J.)