1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3284/2010 TUKARAM F. DONGRE AND ANOR ..VS.. STATE OF MAH AND ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B. G. Kulkarni, adv for petitioners Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP R-1 to 3 Shri N.D. Khamborkar, adv for R-4 Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar adv for R-6, 8, 9 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 04, 2011. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to the respondent no.2 to enquire in the matter of appointments of respondent nos.5 to 10 within a period of one month. Further, a direction is sought against the respondent no.2 to initiate criminal prosecution against the respondents nos. 3 to 10 for playing fraud in the process of appointments and approval of respondent nos. 5 to 10. The petitioners also seek a writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the approval orders issued in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 10. The petitioners claim to be the trustees of Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thanegaon. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 2005, the respondent no.4 the Secretary of the said trust made appointments of the respondent nos.5 to 10 on the post of Assistant Teachers without issuing any advertisement in that regard. It is the 2 case of the petitioners that a fake and fabricated advertisement was produced before the Education Officer while seeking approval to the appointments of the respondent nos. 5 to 10 on the post of Assistant Teachers. It is averred in the petition that the school is a grant in aid school and the respondents nos. 5 to 10 are being paid the salary for the past six years, though they were not entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers. Hence, the petitioners seeks an enquiry against the respondent no.4 in the said matter. We fail to understand as to why the petitioners did not approach this court for a period of more than five years from the issuance of the approval orders in favour of the respondent nos.5 to 10 in February 2005. We find that there is a serious dispute between the members of the managing body of the trust and hence the petitioners have approached this court seeking the aforestated reliefs. The facts stated in the writ petition are seriously disputed by the respondents. Since disputed question of facts arise in this writ petition it would not be possible for this court to entertain this writ petition and exercise the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the petitioners were aggrieved by the action of the other trustees, it was for the petitioners to move the authorities under the Bombay Public Trust Act. However, the petitioners have belatedly approached this court without explaining the latches. 3 Hence, for the reasons aforesaid the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP