1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.430/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2707/2011 ( Punjabrao Mohanji Phalke vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner Nagpur and another ) & LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.407/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2706/2011 ( Punjabrao Mohanji Phalke vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner Nagpur and another ) ….................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 8th December, 2011. Both the Appeals are heard finally. The petitioner wanted to intervene in Change Report No.1306/2006 and that was rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. This was then questioned by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2707/2011 and the learned single Judge of this Court on 28th June, 2011 has maintained that order. Advocate Parsodkar, contends that the finding that present appellant is not a “person interested” in the Trust is erroneous and 2 misconceived. According to him, Change Report earlier submitted by petitioner vide Change Report Nos. 1139/1989 ; 190/1992 and 726/2002 were all accepted. He contends that finding about status of petitioner/appellant is yet to attain finality. Advocate Chandurkar is relying upon admission given by appellant in these three Change Report proceedings to show that the appellant has accepted that he was never enrolled as member of the Trust. According to him, this admission itself is clinching and decisive. During arguments, it has come on record that though the above-referred three change reports were initially accepted, the Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal under section 70 (2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 had reversed that acceptance and that judgment is now questioned in further Appeal under section 72 before the District Court. It is, therefore, apparent that the alleged admission and it s impact has yet to attain finality. In any case, the application which has been rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner is only seeking intervention. In this situation, without prejudice to rival contentions of parties about the status of present appellant, we grant the prayer of appellant and he is permitted to interervene in Change Report No. 1306/ 2006 & 2099/2008. However it is clarified that the authority undertaking adjudication in 3 relation to said change report has to consider impact of the subsequent judgments if any delivered in proceedings in relation to change report Nos.1139/1989; 190/1992; 726/2002. Impugned orders are accordingly set aside and both the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE sahare