1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7314 OF 2009 1] Mahadu s/o. Nago Choudhari, Age 83 years, Occ. Agriculture, 2] Anil s/o. Mahadu Choudhari Age 37 years, Occ. Service, Both r/o. Kusumba Tq. And Dist. Dhule. .. Petitioner/s Versus 1] The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik. 2] Trimbak s/o. Nago Choudhari, Age 71 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Kusumba, Tq. And Dist. Dhule. .. Respondent/s. --- Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for the respondent No.2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 18th November, 2009. PER COURT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31st October, 2009, vide which the earlier order passed by the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner, dated 22nd October, 2009, has been clarified . 3] Undisputedly, the change report filed by the present petitioner was allowed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner vide order dated 30th December, 2008. Subsequent to that, an entry in Schedule I came to be recorded on 3rd January, 2009, thereby bringing on record the names of the present petitioners. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed before the Jt. Charity Commissioner by the present respondent No.2 . Alongwith the appeal an application for stay to the order was also filed. An order came to be passed on the said application at Exhibit 6, thereby allowing the said application. However, while allowing the said application, the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner (respondent NO.1 herein) observed that in the interest of the trust, the recorded managing committee shall manage the day to day affairs of the trust. However, the respondent No.1 has put a rider on the powers of the recorded managing trusties, and directed them not to take any policy decision, without obtaining prior permission of the respondent No.1. 4] It appears that, thereafter, an application came to be filed on 31st October, 2009, seeking a clarification as to what is meant by recorded Managing Trustee in the order dated 22nd October, 2009. The learned Jt. Charity Commissioner, vide order dated 31st October, 2009, passed an order, thereby observing that the incoming trustees i.e. the petitioners cannot 3 function and trustees who are removed under entry “C” would function. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 5] Shri Hon, learned counsel apearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 6] Shri Bachate, learned counsel for respondent NO.2 has placed on record a pursis filed on behalf of the respondent. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. In the said pursis, it is stated that the respondent NO.2 is giving consent for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31st October, 2009, as the same has been passed without hearing the petitioners. It is thus an undisputed position that the order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The procedure adopted by the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner is totally unknown to the cannons of justice. Every judicial and quasi judicial order has to be preceded by the principles of natural justice. In any event, the order impugned upsets the position which has been in operation from 3rd January, 2009. It is thus clear that the application for stay to the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner itself was filed after a period of 10 months and 15 days. In this background, I find that the entire approach of the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner was totally erroneous. Instead of changing the situation which was holding the field for 10 and half months, I find that, it would have been in the interest of justice to continue the said position till the disposal of the appeal by imposing fetters on the powers of the Managing Committee, which 4 was already recorded. As a matter of fact,in the order dated 22nd October, 2009, the learned respondent No.1 refers to the recorded managing trustees. The said position has been clarified by the impugned order and that too, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7] In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). It is made clear that during the pendency of the appeal before the respondent No.1, the petitioners shall continue to look after the day to day administration of the trust, subject to the following limitations :- [i] That, they shall not take any major financial or policy decision without prior approval of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule; [ii] That, the petitioners shall not make any appointments, transfers, dismissal of the employees in the Trust, without the prior approval of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the respondent NO.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondent NO.2 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 months from today. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 5