1 wp 7853 s. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7853 OF 2010 Brahman Sabha Karveer ...Petitioner vs. Sou. Seema Ravindra Joshi ...Respondent Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for petitioner Mr.Rajesh Parab i/b Mr.Abhijit M.Adagale for respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 20, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2 On 12th October,2010, notice for final disposal of the petition was issued by this Court. 3 Pending an appeal before the learned Jt.Charity 2 wp 7853 Commissioner, the petitioner who is the appellant made an application for grant of interim relief permitting the present trustees to run the affairs of the Trust till the disposal of the appeal. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 4 The impugned order reads thus ­ “ Heard. Perused the application and the orders passed by Hon’ble H.C.High Court has declined to stay the order of this Court until the decision of this appeal. No point to continue the appellant body to run the affairs of the trust. Hence the appln.stands rejected .” 5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application made by the petitioner for interim relief has not been decided on merits. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in the appeal pending before the learned Jt.Charity Commissioner, such an interim relief could not have been granted. 6 I have considered the submissions. It appears that 3 wp 7853 during the pendency of the appeal before the Jt.Charity Commissioner, an application was made by the petitioner for stay of operation and execution of the order passed by the Dy.Charity Commissioner. The said application was rejected. By order dated 1st September,2010 in W.P. no.6190/2010 ,though the order of rejection of application for stay was not interfered with, a liberty was granted by this Court to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for an appropriate interim relief. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Jt.Charity Commissioner was impressed by the fact that this Court did not interfere with the order on stay application. However, the learned Jt.Charity Commissioner has not taken a note that this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for interim relief. It is obvious from the impugned order that the fresh application made by the petitioner in terms of liberty granted by this Court has not been decided on merits. Therefore, the only course open for this Court is to set aside the impugned order and to direct the Jt.Charity Commissioner to decide the application afresh. 4 wp 7853 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that an application for transfer of the proceedings of the appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the Charity Commissioner. If the petitioner wants continuation of ad interim relief granted by this Court, the petitioner will have to argue the application for interim relief irrespective of the pendency of the application for transfer before the Charity Commissioner . 8 Hence the petition is disposed of by passing the following order. a] Impugned order dated 21/9/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. b] The application made by the petitioner dated 15/9/2010 is restored to the file of the Jt.Charity Commissioner. c] Learned Jt.Charity Commissioner will hear the parties and decide the application afresh on its own merits. d] The application shall be decided afresh within a period of six weeks from today. 5 wp 7853 e] Ad interim relief granted by this Court on 1st October,2010 will continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today. f] It is made clear that the application for interim relief will be decided by the learned Jt.Charity Commissioner without being influenced by the grant of limited ad­interim relief by this Court. g] Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE 6 wp 7853