1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2002 OF 2010 MANOHAR KESHAVRAO PATIL VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR BHUPRAO SHETE AND ANR ... Shri S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri V.D.Salunke h/f Shri S.V.Natu Advocates for respondent 1, Smt. R.K.Ladda, AGP for respondent 2. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH,J. Dated : 8.3.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 presented copy of the affidavit in reply and some documents which are annexed with the affidavit. It is taken on record and marked Exhibit "X" for identification. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out from the prayers of the writ petition, the challenges made. Two orders have been questioned in this Writ Petition. First order is the order passed below Exhibits 135, 137 and 139 dated 24.6.2009. Another order challenged in 2 this Writ Petition is below Exhibit 169 in Enquiry Application No.688 of 2006, dated 23.2.2010. Learned counsel Shri Jadhavar points out the status of the petitioner as out going trustee. At Exhibit "A" to this petition, name of the petitioner is mentioned at Sr.No.14. His submission is that since he is outgoing trustee and party to Enquiry Application No.688 of 2006, he is entitled to carry out the cross examination. If the respondents are desirous they can seek deletion and if their prayer is accepted, there is no reason for the petitioner to seek cross examination. 4. Shri Salunke, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 supports the order passed by the authority. 5. When this matter was mentioned, Shri Jadhavar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has presented copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3862 of 2009, dated 9.2.2010 (Coram: S.B.Deshmukh,J.). By this order, this Court had directed the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide and dispose of the application on/or before 10.3.2010. Parties, who were present before the Court through Advocate / Counsel were directed to remain present before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad on 15.2.2010. It was further noted in that order that respondent No.2 was not represented in that writ petition but then if he is already party, he may remain present before learned Assistant Charity Commissioner on 15.2.2010. Shri Salunke made a statement in that writ petition that he will communicate this 3 order to respondent No.2. Statement so made was accepted and taken on record and further order was passed. 6. Shri Salunke, learned Advocate on instructions submitted that this order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3862 of 2009 dated 9.2.2010 was challenged by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court and incidentally, according to him, said SLP has been dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court today. Statement is accepted and taken on record. 7. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, page 19, is read by Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel, right from the beginning till end. This order is self explanatory. Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has said so many things , recorded every minute detail, cooperation, non-cooperation, conduct - of advocates and litigants etc. in the said order. For example, I am quoting the part of the said order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner as under:- " It is the bounden duty of every applicant and respondent and also their advocates that too see the every date what order / steps taken by the authority. But the orders passed more than 2 years and more than 5 to 6 months the respondent and his advocates are aware though the matter was time bound." 8. Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 in this 4 proceeding, points out the date of filing of the application by the petitioner on 18.2.2010. This date, I have taken from page No.24 of the compilation. This application bears the endorsement, "Received Copy on 18.2.2010 at 12.35 p.m." One day's time was granted. This was the request made by reporting trustee. Time was granted. The matter was heard on 23.2.2010 and came to be rejected. 9. Though the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has recorded conduct of the parties in so many words, which I have quoted, I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel Shri Jadhavar for the petitioner. While dictating this order and more specifically while quoting the text from the order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel sought withdrawal of the writ petition. Withdrawal of the writ petition, such submission, can be claimed to be innocuous On may a times, such prayers are accepted by the Court. In the case on hand, I have given due consideration to this submission also. I am not in favour of this submission to allow withdrawal of the writ petition. 10. Secondly, on merits, I am convinced that the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner dt.24.6.2009 is reasoned, legal, proper and justifiable. So is the case with the order dated 23.2.2009. In totality, in my view, absolutely there is no reason for invocation of the extra ordinary jurisdiction / supervisory jurisdiction 5 vested with this Court. 11. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Since I have, by earlier order, given directions in Writ Petition No.3862 of 2009 and Special Leave Petition filed against the said order has been dismissed, as submitted by Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for respondent No.1, I am not giving further directions in the matter. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner shall act in view of the earlier order and directions given in Writ Petition No.3862 of 2009. ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) ... akl