1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1041 /2009 (Richin T.O. Abraham VERSUS The Asstt. C.C., Yavatmal & another) AND Writ Petition No. 1070 /2009 (Dayanand Brijwasi Mishra & another VERSUS The Asstt. C.C., Yavatmal & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anand Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions. Shri D.M. Kale, A.G.P. for the R-1 in both the petitions. Shri M.Y. Wadodkar, counsel for the R-2 in both the petitions. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 29, 2009. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are almost identical, the writ petitions are heard together and are decided by this common order. By these petitions, the petitioners impugn the orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal on 20.12.2008 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners to grant an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard and also submit their pleadings before the authorities as they were founder members of the trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, however, by the impugned orders dated 20.12.2008, rejected the applications. 2 On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the Assistant Charity Commissioner did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned orders. The Assistant Charity Commissioner observed that the petitioners did not produce any documentary proof in regard to their membership as founder members, much less, a cogent documentary proof. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners, that the respondents had admitted in a reply to the application filed by the petitioners at Exh.12 that they were the founder members of the trust is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that in the reply to Exh.12, it is clearly stated by the respondents that the petitioners were the Ordinary members of the trust but, they have ceased to be the members of the trust since the year 1999 after they had failed to deposit the membership fees. It is categorically stated in the reply that the petitioners were not even the ordinary members of the trust at the time of the filing of the reply. There is no error whatsoever, much less, a jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal on 20.12.2008 as the petitioners had failed to prove that they were the founder members of the trust and had a right to be heard in the 3 proceedings. In the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE