1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.852 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8127 OF 2008 Niket V. Mehta. ..Applicant. v/s. Vijay K. Mehta & Ors. ..Respondents. Shri Subash Jha i/b. Dinesh D. Tiwari & Associates for applicant. Shri Sanjay Jain a/w. Shri Atul Daga i/b. Wadia Ghandy and Co. for Respondent No.1. Shri S.K.Chinchalikar, AGP for State. Shri Pranav Badheka a/w. Shane Sapeco i/b. Hariani & Co. for Respondent No.9 to 11. Mr.Naser Ali a/w. Hetal Thakore i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Assoc. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED :- JULY 31, 2009. P.C. 1. The limited grievance brought before this Court by the Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition is that although the said party had not participated in the proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition No.8127 of 2008, the 2 observations made in paragraph-20 and 27 of my said Judgment dated 2nd February, 2009 in Writ Petition No.8127 of 2008 would indicate that the Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition was represented before me and in fact, made submissions, which have been dealt with in the impugned Judgment. The apprehension is completely misplaced. Neither the observations made in paragraph-20, or for that matter in paragraph-27 would even remotely give that impression. All that has been mentioned is that for the reasons, which are relevant for deciding the point in issue raised before the Court by the Petitioners, the same logic would negative the claim of the Respondent No.3, if at all he were to make similar grievance questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Suffice it to observe that if the Respondent No.3 was aggrieved by the Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner he was free to question the correctness thereof in his own right, which proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law. 2. In the circumstances, as no other controversy is raised in this Application by the Counsel appearing before the Court, this Application is rejected for the aforesaid reasons. 3 3. At this stage, Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Court may specifically record the grievance of the Applicant that the Applicant was not served with the Writ Petition No.8127/08. For the reasons mentioned hitherto the above grievance will be of no avail in the proceedings already disposed of. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)