1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3708 OF 2010 Bapu Anantrao Sonji ..Petitioner V/s Kishor Kalyanrao Gangane and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel holding for Mr.S.S. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner. Mr.V.D. Salunke, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel holding for Mr.A.S. Gandhi, advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4. Mr.V.R. Dhorde, advocate for respondent no.9. Mr.N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for respondent no.10. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 7th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner was granted right to collect the offerings of articles and cash amounts from three (3) boxes kept in the temple of Tuljabhavani, wherein the devotees were supposed to drop the offerings. The petitioner was the highest bidder when auction of such a right was held, and therefore, the tender was granted in his favour. There were complaints against the petitioner regarding certain misconduct and particularly for the reason that he had been collecting such offerings and valuables from the seven (7) boxes 2 instead of three (3), for which he was eligible. There were allegations of misappropriation and financial bunglings by the trustees and the auction bidder. 3. The Joint Charity Commissioner took action under Section 41-E of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Joint Charity Commissioner held that, the very method of auctioning of the right to collect from the offering boxes (Dan Petis) was itself improper and illegal. The upset value of such offerings could not be re-determined, and therefore, such auction process was likely to give rise to benefits in favour of the auction bidder. The Joint Charity Commissioner by the impugned order directed cancellation of the auction proceedings and the agreement drawn in pursuance to the acceptance of the highest bid. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. It is argued that since the auction was held about six (6) months prior and the petitioner has partly received the amounts of the offerings, now in the midst of the year, it would be unfair to cancel the contract for remaining period of six months. It is contended that equity is in favour of the petitioner and that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner should not have taken such 3 action only on the basis of the complaints filed by the persons who were having grudge against the petitioner. It may be noticed that the method adopted for conducting the auction was found to be unfair and improper. 6. The petitioner's private right of collecting offerings is allegedly breached due to the termination of contract. He can not seek public law remedy by filing Writ Petition when violation of private right is alleged. The Petition is therefore not maintainable. Secondly, it involves disputed questions of facts, since the petitioner's case is that he did not commit any misconduct whereas, the respondent no.3 Trust alleged that he had collected the offerings from seven (7) boxes though was eligible to collect only from three (3) boxes. Under the circumstances, the Petition is dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of Writ Petition, nothing survives in Civil Application No.9155/2010, hence same shall stand dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp3708.10