1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5713 OF 2010 (Santosh Narayan Madavi ..vs.. Sukhdeo Sadashiv Meshram and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Prashant Gode, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.B. Moon, Advocate for respondent No.1, Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 09 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Gadchiroli on 12-10-2010, allowing the respondent No.1 to participate in the change report enquiry proceedings. 2. The petitioner is the reporting trustee who had filed a change report under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The respondent No.1 had filed an application in those proceedings along with his objection. The petitioner raised an objection to the application filed by the respondent No.1 stating therein that the respondent No.1 was not even an ordinary member of the Trust and therefore, was not a “person interested” and hence could not have filed an objection in the change report enquiry proceedings. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, however by the impugned order dated 12-10-2010 permitted the respondent No.1 to participate in the proceedings by holding that he was a “person interested”. 3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties 2 and on perusal of the impugned order dated 12-10-2010 along with other documents filed on record, it appears that the Assistant Charity Commissioner did not commit any error in permitting the respondent No.1 to participate in the change report enquiry proceedings and file his objection. The Assistant Charity Commissioner considered the fact that the name of the respondent No.1 was deleted from Schedule-I for the first time in the year 2002. The respondent No.1 was a trustee of the Trust since the year 1983 to 1998. The minutes filed on record further showed that the respondent No.1 was again re-elected on the Executive Committee of the Trust in May 1999 for a period of five years. The Assistant Charity Commissioner relied on some receipts showing the payment of Rs.100/- by the respondent No.1 to record a finding that the respondent No.1 was the life member of the Trust as he was paying a yearly subscription of Rs.100/- and was a member of the Trust admittedly since the the year 1983, as his name was shown in Schedule-I since then. The Assistant Charity Commissioner did not rely on the statement of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 was removed from the Trust and was dismembered in the year 2003, as he failed to deposit the annual contribution and was not attending the meetings as there was no provision in the constitution of the Trust authorising the General Body to remove a life member of the Trust from the membership. The Assistant Charity Commissioner considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents on record to hold that the petitioner falls within the definition of the term “person interested” under Section 2(10)(d) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Surely, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No.1 was a “person interested” and was entitled to participate in the proceedings filed by the petitioner. 3 4. Since the impugned order dated 12-10-2010 is just and proper, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE pma