bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7139 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7139 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7139 OF 2008 Shri Appaso Daulu Khede & anr. ... Petitioners v/s Gajanan Shikshan Sanstha & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Venkatesh A. Shastry for the petitioners. Mr.M.L.Patil for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, in Misc. Application No.7 of 2008. By this order, the Joint Charity Commissioner has condoned the delay caused by the 1st respondent in filing the appeal. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.9.2007 in respect of the change report No.317 of 2006. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.1 was aware of the order on the change report having been passed in December, 2007 itself as he had issued a letter on 28th December, 2007 requesting that no change be effected on the Public Trust Registrar (in short, 2 "P.T.R."). 2. The petitioners have joined the institution as respondent No.1 through its Secretary Balasaheb Shripati Hirugade. According to the petitioners, Balasaheb Shripati Hirugade has resigned and therefore the change report. Surprisingly, the petitioners have not cared to make him a party to the petition in his personal capacity. An explanation is given in para 1 at page 3 of the petition that "cause title in the miscellaneous application is reproduced in order to avoid technical objections that may be raised by the office of this Court". This contention of the petitioners is without merit. If a change report is to be implemented, the party who is affected by this change report must be made a party to the writ petition. Balasaheb Shripati Hirugade is a necessary party to the petition. The petition therefore ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. 3. However, I am constrained to consider the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners on merits of the case. It is contended that Hirugade was aware of the order having been passed on 28th December, 2007 itself in view of the contents of his letter of that date. By this letter Hirugade had informed the 3 Charity Commissioner that he was the Secretary of the Gajanan Shikshan Sanstha and that he was looking after the working of the institution. He has further stated that a false resignation purportedly given by him is understood to have been accepted by the institution. He has denied having submitted a letter of resignation. He further states that, in view of this he would be preferring an appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner and no alterations should be effected in Register No.F-12174 of the P.T.R. This letter, in my opinion, does not in any manner indicate that Hirugade was aware that the order had been passed on the change report. He clearly states that the resignation purportedly accepted should not create a situation where the P.T.R. would be altered. The submission of the learned advocate for the petitioners that this letter indicates that Hirugade was aware of the order on the change report, is unsustainable. 4. The Joint Charity Commissioner has considered the matter and has accepted the contentions of the Hirugade that he became aware of the order having been passed only on 18.1.2008 when the headmistress of the school run by the institution informed him. The application has been made for the copy of the order on 22.1.2008 and thereafter Hirugade filed the appeal alongwith the 4 miscellaneous application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The order is not in any way perverse. It being a discretionary order, there is no need for any interference by this Court. 5. Writ petition rejected.