SSK/904/sb 1 WP.10070.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10070 OF 2010 Feroze Sheriar Irani & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus The Charity Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Dara S. Irani, petitioner no.2 in person. Mr. Percy S. Irani, petitioner no.3 in person. Ms.P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. S. R. Tejpal i/b. M/s. Tejpal & Co. for respondent nos. 4 to 7. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 8TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard petitioner nos. 2 & 3 in person, Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondent no.4 and learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7. 2. By the impugned order, the Deputy Charity Commissioner rejected the petitioners’ application under Section 41(b) of the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1950 (in short “the Act”). By the said application, the petitioners claimed the following reliefs: A. The notice be issued to the respondents for hearing this application. SSK/904/sb 2 WP.10070.10 B. That Your Honour be pleased to insitute a “Judicial Enquiry” against the respondents for the outstanding water charges pending with the Corporation. C. That Your Honour be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the water supply to the applicants. D. That Your Honour be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the outstanding water charges and the penalty to B.M.C.K- East Ward for water connection no.A-6520004 for dues pending up to 31st July, 2008. E. That ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayers C and D above be granted. F. That the cost of the present application be directed to be paid by the respondents to the applicants. G. Such other and further orders may be passed as Your Honour deems fit an proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case.” 3. The petitioners claim to be interested persons within the meaning of Section 2 (10) of the Act. It is the petitioners contention that their father was the manager of the respondent no.2-Trust and in that capacity, he was given quarters belonging to respondent no.2 for the purpose of residence. It is the further contention of the petitioners that SSK/904/sb 3 WP.10070.10 petitioner no.2 after the death of their father was appointed as a manager. This contention is of course denied by respondent no.2-Trust. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the quarters given to their deceased father as the manager of the trust. The respondent no.2-Trust has filed a suit in this case bearing no. 3569 of 2002 for eviction against the present petitioners and the same is pending. The petitioners, as stated above, filed an application for the reliefs stated above under Section 41(B) of the Act. Section 41(B)(1) reads as follows: “(1) On receipt of a complaint in writing from any person having interest in respect of any public trust or suo motu the Charity Commissioner or Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may institute an inquiry with regard to charities, or a particular charity or class of charities either generally, or for particular purposes.” If the contentions raised in the application by the petitioners are considered, then, in my opinion, the enquiry in respect of the reliefs claimed by them does not fall within the scope of the enquiry as contemplated under Section 41(B) of the Act. Similar view is taken by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and therefore, the petition is dismissed. SSK/904/sb 4 WP.10070.10 4. Needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. 5. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the civil application no. 3119 of 2010 is rendered infructuous, and therefore, the same is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)