1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2994/2010 [Sadhna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others .vrs. Education Officer (Secondary), Yavatmal and another] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 30, 2011. Heard Shri Temburne, learned counsel holding for Shri J.T. Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri A.S. Sonare, learned AGP for respondent no.1/State and Shri M.Y. Wadodkar, learned counsel for the applicant – intervenor in Civil Application No.2319/2010. Admittedly, the charge of affairs of the Petitioner no.1 - Institution is not with respondent no. 2, the earlier Administrator. As per order dated 9.2.2010, Administrator has handed over the charge to Vice President i.e. petitioner no.2 before us. The Contempt Petition was then filed and in that Contempt Petition No.67/2010, this Court on 9.6.2010 clarified that earlier direction dated 8.6.2009 2 in Writ Petition No.4939/2008 was meant to hand over the charge to the management. The communication dated 9.2.2010 has been read in that light and it is held that the charge handed over to Vice President (Petitioner No.2) is not for himself but it is for the entire management including Vice President also. Because of this clarification, respondent no.1 has issued another order on 16.6.2010 stating that charge has been handed over to Vice President and all other trustees whose names appear in Schedule I. The clarification by this Court dated 9.6.2010 did not and does not warrant issuance of any order like order dated 16.6.2010. The charge taken by Vice President is not in an individual capacity but on behalf of entire trust i.e. all trustees of petitioner no.1 body. If after taking charge accordingly, petitioner no.2 is not conducting affairs of the trust properly, the grievance in this respect needs to be agitated before the Competent Authority. Hence, with that liberty to present intervenor, who is one of the trustee in Schedule – I, we dispose of the present petition. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande