1 WP521OF10.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.521 OF 2010 Milind Padmakar Kachare and ors .. Petitioners -versus Shri.Mahadev Vishnu alias Tatya saheb Joshi and ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.533 OF 2010 Mahadeo Vishnu alias Tatyasaheb Joshi & ors .. Petitioners. Versus Milind P. Kachare and ors .. Respondents. Mr. Warunjikar, for the Petitioners in WP NO.521 OF 2010 and for respondent Nos 1, 2, 5 to 8 in WP No.533 of 2010. Mr. Adesh Gurav for the respondent Nos l to 3 in WP No.521 of 2010 and for the petitioner in WP no.533 of 2010. Mr. S.G. Karandikar for the Intervenor. Mr.Cardoz D’souza , AGP for respondent No.4 in WP No.521 of 2010. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED: 22nd July, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By the order dated 5.1.2010, the Joint Charity Commissioner, issued 2 WP521OF10.sxw directions, thereby appointing Assistant Charity Commissioner as Election officer with further direction to the election Officer to hold election of Akhil Deshastha Rigvedi Bramhim Madhyavarthi Mandal Mumbai, within a period of three months. By subsequent order dated 2.1.2010, Joint Charity Commissioner at the instance of Respondent No.3 directed Election Officer to continue election process from the stage to which it has reached. This order is challenged in this petitioner. Mr. Warunjikar, points out that the Joint Charity Commissioner, subsequently by his order, dated 21.1.2010, directed Mr. Kulkarni the Election Officer not to hold the election until further orders. 2. Meanwhile, the elections were held on 24.1.2010 by the Officer appointed by the High Power Committee. It appears that order dated 21/1/2010 was not served on the concerned parties before election. 3. In above circumstances Mr. Warunjikar submits that the elections to said Trust are contrary to the order dated 21.1.2010. The said election was held during the pendency of aforesaid petition. The petitioner himself voted in this election in pursuant to the order passed by this Court. 4. The validity of the election cannot be gone into in this writ petition, in view of several disputed questions of fact. The petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the said election by filing 3 WP521OF10.sxw appropriate proceeding. In above circumstances, I am of the opinion, the petition itself is rendered infructuous and the same is therefore disposed of as such. 5. It is expressly made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and all the points and contentions of the respective parties are expressly kept open. (R. V. MORE, J.)