1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2490 OF 2008 (Nanasaheb Sadashiv Jane & Ors. vs. Pralhad Anandrao Keche) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Gordey with Shri Ingley, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dhumale, learned counsel for the respondent. The contention of Shri Gordey, learned counsel is that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has refused to exercise jurisdiction available to it under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, because of nature of controversy involved in the matter. He points out that tenure of old body is already over and in appeal filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner, no interim order was granted. He states that Trust has conducted fresh elections in which the petitioners are elected and their Change Report is pending. According to him, therefore, as the petitioners are duly elected trustees, they are entitled to administer the Trust and for that purpose, only remedy available to them under Bombay Public Trust Act, is under Section 2 41A. He states that the application was moved and the Assistant Charity Commissioner has taken erroneous view of the matter that an enquiry either judicial or quasi judicial was warranted in the matter. Shri Dhumale, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that without such enquiry, there could not have been any direction because the election of present petitioners is also in dispute and the Change Report is pending for consideration before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. He further points out that challenge to earlier Change Report is also pending and as such until and unless these enquiries which are quasi judicial in nature are over, the persons entitled to administer the trust cannot be determined. After hearing parties, I find that in the background of two disputes substantively pending about the entitlement of parties to administer the Trust, the recourse of Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act was rightly not available to the petitioners. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are free to file 3 appropriate application before the Competent Authority to seek necessary reliefs in the interest of Trust. JUDGE *GS.