ca2998-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2998 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2341 OF 2009 Anil Motiram Kalyankar & Ors ..Petitioners/ Applicants versus Shree Jogeshwar Mahadev Mandir Trust & Ors ..Respondents Mr.S.C.Naidu, Mr.N.P.Dalvi and Mr.S.D.Kulkarni i/by C.R.Naidu & Co for the petitioners. Mr.Jyotiram S. Yadav i/by Vilas B. Tapkir for respondent Nos. 1,3,8,10 and 11. Mr.G.N.Mattos for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th July 2011. P.C.: . This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune dated 6th October ca2998-10.doc 2 2008. The order is passed on an application seeking to revoke the sanction under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Sub-section 2 of section 36 gives a discretion to revoke sanction under clauses (a) or (b) of sub-section 1 on the ground that such sanction was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation made to the Charity Commissioner or by concealing the facts material for the purpose of giving sanction. 2 The application has been rejected by holding that the contentions therein do not make out a case for exercise of the discretion under sub-section 2 of section 36. The writ petition has been admitted. Prima facie, there is a distinction between an order which is erroneous and an order which is result of a fraud or misrepresentation. Hence, unless this Court scrutinises the record and comes to a definite conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioners make out a case of fraud or misrepresentation or concealing of facts material for the purpose of giving sanction, no interim relief can be granted. Prayer for interim relief is refused. Hearing of writ petition is ca2998-10.doc 3 expedited. Needless to state that the Trust as well as the purchaser will have to abide by the final orders in the writ petition. 3 At this stage, Mr.Naidu submits that the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 30th March 2011 be continued for a period of six weeks to enable the petitioners to impugn and challenge this order in the higher Court. 4 On a perusal of the order passed on 30th March 2011, it is apparent that it recorded the statement of the respondent Nos.1, 3, 8, 10 and 11, so also respondent No.2 that these respondents will not take any steps in terms of the order granting sanction. It is the statement made, which was accepted. In these circumstances and when I have come to a prima facie conclusion as recorded above, there is no warrant for continuing the order dated 30th March 2011. As the statement has not been agreed to be extended, prayer for interim relief is, therefore, refused. ca2998-10.doc 4 5 The civil application is rejected. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)