1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3690 OF 2009 (Hislop Education Society vs. The Joint Charity Commissioner & Anr.) 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. JANUARY 12, 2010. Heard Shri Ukey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Khade, learned counsel for respondent No.1. There is no appearance for respondent No.2, though he is served. The contention of Shri Ukey, learned counsel is order dated 30.09.2008 has been passed only because the petitioner did not lead the evidence but at no point of time, Application No. 5 of 2007 at Exh. 18 was fixed for leading evidence. He has invited attention to the fact that earlier similar order rejecting Exh. 18 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3621 of 2008 and this Court vide judgment dated 02.09.2008 directed the matter to be reconsidered after permitting the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. He has invited attention to Roznama (order sheets) maintained by Respondent No.1 particularly from 27.08.2008 onwards to point out that in spite of High Court orders, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence. Mrs. Khade, learned AGP, on the other hand, 2 argues that the opportunity to lead evidence was known to the petitioner and they appeared before Respondent No.1 but never claimed that opportunity. She points out that in order sheet, Respondent No.1 has never refused to grant such an opportunity. The perusal of impugned order dated 30.09.2008 shows that exh. 18 has been rejected only because the present petitioner did not adduce evidence. It has also been recorded that more than sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner. However, order sheet does not disclose grant of any such opportunity. The application at Exh. 18 is moved by present incumbent working as Principal to substitute herself in place of deceased Principal Shri Bhelwa to prosecute the proceedings. In other matter between the parties, such substitution has been allowed by Joint Charity Commissioner. I, therefore, do not find any malafide on the part of the petitioner in the matter. In the circumstances, order dated 30.09.2008 is quashed and set aside. Application No. 5 of 2007 filed at Exh. 18 is restored back for its consideration as directed by this Court in para 6 of its judgment dated 02.09.2008 mentioned above. The time limit and mode and manner in which the same is to be considered is already prescribed by this Court in para 6 and Respondent No. 1 shall fix the matter for recording of evidence and thereafter proceed further in accordance with said directions. 3 Writ Petition is disposed. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.