1 Review Appln.No.3/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.3/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10425/2010 1) Nana s/o Bhavji Patil and 8 Ors. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) Shridhar s/o Tarakchand Patil and 2 Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VD Hon, Advocate for Applicants; Mr.VH Dighe, AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr.Vinod Patil, Adv. For Respondent No.3 ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th April, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard finally. 2) Respondent No.1-Shridhar (original writ petitioner) in spite of service, absent. 3) Several points are argued by Mr.Patil, Counsel for original respondent no.2-trust and Mr.Hon for the review applicants. Record illustrate, review applicants were not parties in 2 Review Appln.No.3/2011 the writ petition. 4) The review applicants submit, it was a collusive order extracted by said Shridhar, in collusion with so-called Chairman of the trust, in spite of there being already an election having taken place on 27.6.2010, its change report was submitted to the authorities of Assistant Charity Commissioner on 21.10.2010. 5) The order dated 6th November, 2010, reads as under, was extracted from this Court. “Heard. Mr.Patil appears for the respondent no.2-trust. He has no objection even if the election programme is declared on 17.10.2010 to hold elections of the trust by any nominated authority of respondent no.1 Assistant Charity Commissioner. In the light of this statement, the respondent no.2 shall ensure to appoint a competent person to hold elections of respondent no. 2, from the stage after 17.10.2010. Counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the above statement, withdraws the petition. Petition disposed of as withdrawn.” 3 Review Appln.No.3/2011 6) Without adverting to the merits in the order referred above, it is more than clear that the Review Applicants are the aggrieved parties, without serving any notice, the writ petition was moved, making an innocuous prayer in the form of seeking directions to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, suppressing the fact that there was already change report dated 21.10.2010 before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 7) In this situation of the matter, owing to the above directions, the Assistant Charity Commissioner was informed to ensure to appoint a competent person to hold election of the Trust from the stage after 17.10.2010. This order has created hurdle in the activities of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to meet the events, as illustrated by Change Report dated 21.10.2010. 8) Survey of above facts illustrate, the order dated 6th November, 2010 was obtained by suppressing the facts and on erroneous assumption. Consequently, the order is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. 9) The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, considering his report dated 21.3.2011, shall independently decide the 4 Review Appln.No.3/2011 controversies between the rival group on its own merits. 10) The Review petition is allowed in above terms. This Court has not opined on merits of rival claims. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/