1 ndm 63 wp.7187.09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7187 OF 2009 (Anil Manohar Abhangrao and ors. Vs. Bharat Ramchandra Parchandrao and ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. A.A.Joshi for the Petitioners. Mr. V.S.Talkute for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7th December, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for 1st to 3rd respondents. Considering the narrow controversy, taken up for hearing. 2 The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 2nd July, 2009 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. By the said order, charges have been framed under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 against the 3rd and 4th petitioners as well as 4th to 6th respondents. The said two petitioners and said 4th to 6th respondents have been suspended as Trustees under the impugned order. Under the impugned order, a fit person has been ordered to be appointed for looking after the day to day administration of the Trust. 2 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that 1st and 2nd petitioners who are also the Trustees of the Trust have not been suspended. He submitted that as far as 3rd and 4th petitioners are concerned, they are prepared to face the inquiry. He submitted that, however, 1st and 2nd petitioners cannot be prevented from acting as Trustees. The learned counsel appearing for 1st to 3rd respondents supported the impugned order. 4 I have considered the submissions. There does not appear to be any dispute that the first two petitioners are Trustees of the concerned Trust and that they have not been suspended under the impugned order. In terms of earlier order passed by this Court, the said Petitioners have submitted security by depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 5 As the first two petitioners are not suspended, they cannot be prevented for acting as Trustees. Therefore, clauses 3 and 4 of the operative part of the impugned order will have to be set aside. Charges have been framed against the Trustees on 2nd July 2009. Inquiry deserves to be expedited. 6 Hence, petition is disposed of by passing following orders: i. Clauses 1 and 2 of the operative part of the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2009 stand confirmed; 3 ii. The inquiry is expedited and the learned Joint Commissioner shall endeavour to conclude the inquiry on or before 31st October, 2011; iii. As the first two petitioners are not suspended, clauses 3 and 4 of the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2009 stand quashed and set aside; iv. It is made clear that as the clauses 1 and 2 of the operative part of the impugned order have been confirmed, the order of suspension of other Trustees stands confirmed. Therefore, only the 1st and 2nd petitioners will be entitled to act as Trustees. v. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. vi. This order will not prevent the concerned Authority from initiating proceedings for appointment of additional Trustees in accordance with law. [ A.S.OKA, J ]