1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4111/2009 ( Dr. Nitin Ramdas Dhande -: versus :- Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society and another . ) 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. DATED : NOVEMBER 06, 2009. Heard Shri Apurva De, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. The Joint Charity Commissioner has under Section 36-A[3] of the Bombay Public Trust Act, permitted respondent no.1 Trust to raise loan of Rs. 5 Crores by mortgaging survey no.84, however, the Bank of Maharashtra named in that order refused to extend loan and hence, the Trust reconsidered the situation, approached another Bank and moved application before the Joint Charity Commissioner seeking leave to raise loan from other Bank and offering one more property i.e. survey no.54 as security in mortgage. It appears that initially the trust moved an application for amendment of earlier orders and later on it was withdrawn and present application styled as 2 ‘application for changing name of Bank’ came to be filed. The present petitioner who is trustee raised objection before the Joint Charity Commissioner about maintainability, contending that respondent no.1 was seeking review of the earlier order and as there is no provision for review, the application is misconceived. That objection has been rejected by the Authority after noticing that the application cannot be read as application for review. The Authority has noticed that the trust is raising loan of Rs.5 Crores from some other Bank and was proposing to mortgage one other property. It was also noticed that, after it’s earlier judgment dated 8.4.2009, a circular resolution was obtained by the Trust on 4.5.2009 and accordingly application was moved before it. The anxiety of learned counsel for petitioner appears to be that the Joint Charity Commissioner is likely to mechanically permit the substitution. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the Authority has to consider the application as fresh proposal and apply its mind to find out, whether such substitution or then offering of additional property in mortgage is in the interest of the trust or not. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that interest of trust is already protected by resolution dated 4.5.2009 and that resolution is yet not considered on merits by the Joint Charity Commissioner. He points out that writ petition has been filed only after rejection of the preliminary objection and interim order has been granted. There is nothing before this Court to show that 3 Joint Charity Commissioner is not going to look into the merits of the request made by the respondent no.1. The loan of Rs.5 Crores has been granted and permission to mortgage property therefore also granted. The order shows that Joint Charity Commissioner is aware that additional property is being given in security. The said aspect and resolution dated 4.5.2009 is still not considered by the said Authority. I therefore, find that challenge being made by the petitioner at this stage is misconceived. The petitioner has to appear before the said Authority and participate in the proceedings. In the circumstances, as I find Writ Petition premature, the same is disposed of, keeping all contentions on merit about the proposal open for adjudication at appropriate stage. No costs. Needless to mention that interim order granted by this Court stands vacated. JUDGE Rgd.