1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4664 /2007 (Smt. Padma Khemraj Tambhakuwale Vs. Mohanraj @ Guru Amrute & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 6 th OCTOBER, 2008. Heard Shri Loney for the petitioner, Shri Gilda for the respondent no.1, and Shri Parihar, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.2. One Shri Dattatraya Damodhar was the sole trustee of a religious trust- Dattatraya Mandir Sansthan. The mode of succession to the trust was Guru to Chela. According to the petitioner, Shri Dattatraya Damodhar had executed a registered Will and declared that the petitioner was his Chela and hence, after the death of Dattatraya Damodhar on 1/5/2002, the petitioner became the trustee of the said Trust. The petitioner filed a Change Report before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati, which was registered as Change Report Enquiry No. 511/2002. One Shri Naneraj also filed a Change Report before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati, claiming to be the sole trustee and the 2 same was registered as Change Report Enquiry No. 516/2002. Certain proceedings were initiated by the petitioner before the Civil Court as well as the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The respondent no.1- Shri Mohanraj Guru Amrute had also filed a separate Change Report before the Deputy Charity Commissioner which was registered as Change Report No. 359/2005. It is the case of the petitioner that Naneraj was not desirous of prosecuting the Change Report Enquiry No. 516/2002 and he, therefore, filed an application for dismissal of the enquiry, on 29/6/2005. An application under Section 73-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was filed by the respondent no.1- Mohanraj Guru Amrute before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, for joining him to the Change Report No. 516/2002 as an objector for a proper adjudication of the matter. According to the respondent no.1, Naneraj had joined hands with the petitioner and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent no.1 to prosecute the Change Report Enquiry proceedings. The application filed by Naneraj at Exh. 25 on 21/6/2006 and the application filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 73-A of the Act of 1950, were decided by the Deputy Charity Commissioner by the order dated 17/11/2006. By this order, the Deputy Charity 3 Commissioner permitted the deletion of the name of Naneraj and the substitution of the name of Shri Mohanraj Amrute, the respondent no.1, in Change Report Enquiry No. 516/2002. Application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of Change Report Enquiry No. 516/2002 was also rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati by the impugned order dated 30/7/2007. The respondent no.1 had filed an application for grant of permission to adduce evidence in Change Report Enquiry No. 516/2002, by affidavit. The Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati, allowed the application by the order dated 30/7/2007 and further directed that the reported trustee should make himself available for cross-examination. All the three orders are impugned in the instant petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the three applications and the orders passed thereon. It cannot be said that the respondent no.1- Mohanraj was not entitled to file an application under the provisions of Section 73A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. On a reading of the provisions of Section 73-A of the Act, it is clear that a person having interest in the public trust, could be joined as a party to the proceedings under the Act. It is apparent from the record that on 17/11/2006, the Change 4 Report Enquiry No. 516/2002 was pending. Since Nanuraj did not desire to prosecute the Change Report Enquiry proceedings and since the respondent no.1 desired to prosecute the same, the Deputy Charity Commissioner rightly held in the impugned order dated 17/11/2006 that the Change Report Enquiry cannot be summarily dismissed for non-prosecution as it is necessary to hold a full fledged enquiry as contemplated under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 17/11/2006 is neither contrary to the provisions of law, nor is perverse. In fact, the other impugned order dated 30/7/2007 is a sequel to the order dated 17/11/2006 whereby the respondent no.1 has been permitted to prosecute the Change Report Enquiry No. 516/2002. In this background, the Deputy Charity Commissioner held that the Change Report Enquiry No. 516/2002 could not be dismissed summarily as it would have an adverse impact on the other matters instituted by two other parties. The other order dated 30/7/2007, allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 for permission to tender evidence on affidavit cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjust. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati has rightly passed the 5 order dated 30/7/2007, allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 and directing that the respondent no.1 can make himself available for cross-examination. No fault can be found with the orders passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Since it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Change Report Enquiry was initiated in the year 2002, it is expected of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati, to dispose of the proceedings as early as possible. JUDGE RMP