1 wp1465-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1465 OF 2010 Siddheshwar Basappa Kamuti and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Sidram Vitthalrao Banda and ors. ..Respondents ­­ Mr.I.M.Khairadi, for petitioners. Mr.Suresh Bhosale, AGP for respondents. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26 th NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] The Petitioners are some of the trustees of a Public Charitable Trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. An application was filed before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41(D) of the said Act of 1950 praying for removal of trustees. There was a separate application filed under Sub­Section 3 of Section 41(D) praying for suspension of the trustees. Reply was filed by the petitioners and other trustees to the said application. By the impugned order, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner proceeded to frame charges and pass an order of suspension of trustees. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner appointed a 2 wp1465-10.sxw practicing advocate as a fit person to look after day to day management of the trust. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though there was an allegation of misappropriation against the trustees, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not framed any charge on the ground of misappropriation as there was no material to frame such charge. He submitted that there was no notice issued to the petitioners that the prayer for suspension of the petitioners and other trustees will be considered and, in fact, the trustees were heard only on the issue of framing charges. 3] I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Along with the main application under Section 41(D) of the said Act, an application was made under Sub­Section 3 of Section 41(D) praying for suspension of trustees, pending the inquiry. There is a reply filed to the said application. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner has passed two separate orders on 19 th November, 2009. One is of framing charges and another is of suspension. In paragraph 4 of the order of suspension, learned Charity Commissioner recorded that the advocate for petitioners was heard. The first charge framed on the basis of the allegation that the trustees borrowed a sum of Rs.Nine Lacs from a Co­operative Bank without permission of the Charity Commissioner and there is neglect to maintain regular accounts. The second charge is on the basis of allegation that audit reports were not submitted for the period of ten years. In paragraph 7 of the impugned order, learned Joint Charity Commissioner noted that only audit report of the year 2009 was filed. There are reasons recorded for coming to the conclusion that the trustees should be placed under 3 wp1465-10.sxw suspension till the inquiry is made into charges framed against the trustees. 4] The order impugned is dated 19 th November, 2009. Therefore, at this stage, the said order cannot be interferred with. It is obvious that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner will permit the parties to adduce the evidence and will pass an appropriate order on the charges. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner hall conclude the inquiry before April, 2011. [A.S.OKA, J]