1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4185 OF 2009 WITH C.A. NO. 2024/2010 Tulsidas s/o Rangnath Surwase, age 62 yrs, Occ. Secretary of Vidya Vikas Mandal Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad, R/o at Post Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. PETITIONER (orig. R-4) V E R S U S 1- Rambhau s/o Narhari Borade, age 74 yrs, Occ. Agri, r/o at post Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad 2- Suryanath s/o Shishupal Sinh, age 66 yrs, Occ. Ex principal, r/o as above. 3- Sopan Nivrutti Borade, age 74 yrs, Occ. agri, R/o as above. 4- Shri Murlidhar s/o Bhgaurao Kate, age 54 yrs, Occ. Service, r/o as above. 5- Shri Sukhdeo Govind Shinde, age major, Occ. Pensioner, R/o Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom Dist Osmanabad. [R 1, 2 Orig applicants & R. 3 to 5 Orig. R 1-3) 6- The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad Region, Osmanabad. RESPONDENTS. 7- Audumbar s/o Anna Borade, age 72 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, r/o Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom ,Dist Osmanabad. 8- Devidas s/o Devba Kamblikar, age 68 yrs, Occ. agriculture, r/o Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. 9- Bhima s/o Bhagwan Pawar, age 70 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, APPLICANTS. r/o Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom, Dist Osmanabad. INTERVENORS. (Amendment made as per order Dt. 29.09.2009 in CA 9025/2009) 2 Mr. R.R. Mantri h/f Mr. G.S. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, advocate for the respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for R- 3 to 5. Mr. S. N. Kendre, Learned A.G.P. for R-6. Mr. P.R. Patil, advocate for R 7 to 9. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel Mr. R.R. Mantri, instructed by Mr. G. S. Patil, I have perused the prayers in this writ petition. Paragraph No. 15-C is the principal prayer made by the petitioner. By this prayer, petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.06.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad in Enquiry Application No. 184/2007 under section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short ‘said Act’). This petition is filed on 17.06.2009. This petition was before this court on several occasions. I am referring few orders which are relevant. On 22.07.2009 hearing of the petition was adjourned by learned Single Judge of this Court to 20.08.2009, at the instance of counsel for the petitioner. On 06.08.2009, Civil application No.7727/2009 in writ petition No. 4185/2009 was heard by this Court. In this civil application, counsel for the petitioner points out observations made by the learned single Judge of this Court in paragraph No.6 that order of suspension of the trustees including present petitioner dated 06.07.2009 is pending, there is no stay in the said appeal. In paragraph No.7 of the order, learned Single judge of this court observed that "in any case, it is made clear that election of trust which is due on 07.08.2009 will be subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. Civil application disposed 3 of accordingly. Writ petition to be placed on board on 20.08.2009 for admission, which is already due on that day. 4. On 20.08.2009 this Court adjourned hearing of the matter for filing of reply-affidavit, at the request of learned counsel Mr. Salunke, who appears for respondent No.4. Matter was adjourned to 05.09.2009. On 07.09.2009, at the request of counsel for the petitioner matter was adjourned, to go through the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.4. Petition was directed to be listed on 29.09.2009. On 29.09.2009 this court has considered civil application No.9025/2009 in writ petition No.4185/2009. It was C.A seeking intervention by some persons. This C.A has been allowed by this court. That is how counsel for the parties have consensus that respondent Nos. 7,8 and 9 are added as intervenor s. Amendment is carried to the writ petition. These intervenors are represented by Advocate Mr. P.R. Patil. 5. With the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad in Enquiry Application No.184/2007 annexure P-3 (page 22). At this stage, it is relevant to notice that two persons are shown as applicants in this copy of the judgment passed by learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad in Application Enquiry No.184/2007, who are now respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and are represented by Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar. Counsel for the petitioner shows name of the present petitioner as respondent No.4 in this copy of the judgment. I have seen operative part of the order. Said application under section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is allowed. The Election 4 Officer, Mr. M.V. Gaikwad-Inspector Public Trusts Registration Office, Osmanabad is appointed to hold the election of management committee of public Trust Vidya Vikas Mandal, Pathrud, Tq. Bhoom Dist. Osmanabad. This order is dated 04.06.2009. I have minutely considered this order. This order is impugned in this writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner points out some other orders from the compilation of this writ petition which are listed herein below :- a) Annexure P-2, order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.1318/2007. I have noticed that some change reports which were pending before the authorities were sought to be decided expeditiously by the petitioner in WP 1318/2007. This order is passed on 21.04.2007. b) Copy of order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P. 1318/2007 dated 21.04.2007. Counsel for the petitioner points out paragraph No.3 from this order. His emphasis is that, no direction has been given by learned Division Bench of this Court to decide expeditiously change report No.184/2007. c) Page 28 of the compilation Pendency of Enquiry Application No. 184/2007, under section 41-A is mentioned. d) Copy of the roznama maintained by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. It is an application No. 674/2009 (page 50). e) Copy of the roznama in an Enquiry Application No.184/2007 (relevant date is 29.04.2009). In this roznama, on the earlier date i.e. 23.12.2008 it has been recorded that in this proceeding both the parties are not taking interest and proceeding is kept pending. Roznama dated 29.04.2009 5 makes mention that this is pending proceeding along with all other proceeding. This is taken on board. There is some change in this roznama dated 29.04.2009. f) Roznama dated 04.06.2009. It is mentioned in this part of the roznama that proceeding Enquiry Application No.184/2007 has been decided, partly allowed. g) Exh. I-1, clipping in daily newspaper ‘Lokmat’ dated 07/06/2009 election programme, seems to have been published by the Election Officer. Date of pronouncement is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. h) Copy of the appeal No. 24/2009 Exh I-2 (page 131). I) Order passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur dated 19.06.2009 (page 138). According to the counsel for the petitioner, by this order election has been stayed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. j) Order in revision application No.24/2009 dated 28.07.2009. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs pointed out various documents and events in the proceeding. According to him, in view of these documents, entire election process stands vitiated. He further submits that order impugned in this writ petition is per-se illegal. He also pointed out order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur dated 28.07.2009. I have seen the order with the assistance of counsel for the petitioner. He also points out Exh. I-3 (page 141) second Election programme, published by the election officer. The counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur on July 6, 2009 in application No.3/2003, filed under 6 section 41-D of the B.P. T. Act, 1950. In the operative part of this order, he has invited my attention to paragraph No.5 wherein, Inspector, Assistant Charity Commissioner Office, Osmanabad is appointed as fit person to look after the management of the trust and to operate bank account of the trust till final decision of this proceeding. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks quashment of the order impugned in this writ petition. 8. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Mukhedkar, learned counsel submitted that these two respondents are supporting the petitioner. On behalf of respondents No.3 to 5 Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned counsel, points out reply-affidavit, filed on behalf of them which starts from page 70 of the compilation. According to him, present petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. He submits that petitioner has claimed status of Secretary of the Trust in question i.e. Vidya Vikas Mandal, Pathrud (herein after referred to as Trust’ for short). He further submits that order under section 41-D has been passed by the competent authority and petition challenging said order has been dismissed by this Court. According to him, there is no substance in this writ petition and petition be dismissed. Mr. Salunke also points out additional affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5 (page 96) of the compilation. 9. Mr. P.R. Patil, on behalf of intervenor Nos.7, 8 and 9 support the submission of learned counsel Mr. Salunke for respondents No.3 to 5. In addition to that he submits that elections have taken place and in those elections these respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 (intervenors) have been declared as elected along with other four persons, however, deliberately these persons were not joined as 7 party to this proceeding. According to him, change report have been submitted by them and it bears C.R.No.892/2009, pending before learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. According to him, there is no substance in the writ petition. Petition be dismissed. 10. The petitioner have also filed Civil application No.2024/2010. I have heard learned counsel Mr. Mantri for applicant/petitioner, Mr. Mukhedkar, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Salunke for respondents No.3 to 5 in this civil application. Counsel for the respondents objected the civil application. According to him, civil application does not bear any substance and be rejected. This civil application is filed by the petitioner on 15.02.2010. With the assistance of learned counsel Mr. Mantri, I have read entire application. According to Mr. Mantri, learned counsel, these are subsequent events and this application needs to be allowed seeking amendment to the writ petition. 11. I have given anxious consideration to the submission of the counsel in relation to the writ petition. There is consensus among the learned counsel for the parties that writ petition No.5097/2009 was heard by this Court on 02.02.2010 and has been disposed off. Copy of the said order is annexed with the civil application annexure ‘A’. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur dt. 6.7.2009, in an Enquiry Application No.3 of 2003 filed under section 41-D of the said Act. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having taken a note of all the events from the date of passing of 8 the order impugned in this writ petition i.e. 04.06.2009, in my view, absolutely there is no case established for interference in an extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, for the reason that various application/proceedings are pending before the authority under the said Act. Suffice it to record that this writ petition is without substance for interference in an extra ordinary jurisdiction. Elections have already held, change reports are pending before competent authorities and shall be decided by the authority in accordance with the provisions of Law. Needless to mention that I am dismissing the writ petition. 12. I have considered Civil application. Since, I am dismissing writ petition itself considering the varied litigation amongst the persons interested and state of affairs and fact that present petitioner is already under suspension under section 41-D, in my view this Civil application does not have any substance and also requires to be dismissed. 13. Writ petition stands dismissed. Civil application also stands dismissed. Rule issued earlier, stands discharged. I am not giving any direction only for the simple reason that in the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by this Court in writ petition No.5097/2009 appropriate directions, while disposing of that writ petition have been given. Order accordingly. Petition and Civil application stands dismissed and disposed of. ( S. B. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. aaa/4185.09 ---