1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3862 OF 2009 ABHIMANNU VEERBHADRAPPA RASURE AND ORS. PETITIONERS. V/S VIJAYKUMAR BAPURAO SHETE AND ORS. RESPONDENTS. MR.S.S. DEO H/F V.D. GUNALE, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS. MR. V.D. SALUNKE, ADV. H/F MR.S.V. NATU FOR R/1 CVTR. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY, 2010. PER CO URT :- 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Dev, instructed by Mr. Gunale, who appears for the petitioners, advocate Mr. V.D. Salunke instructed by Mr. Natu, who appears for respondent No.1, learned A.G.P. for respondent No.3. 2. I have noticed that there are about 17 petitioners in this writ petition. In this writ petition notice was not issued by this Court. Respondent No.1 is present before this court on caveat. There is no representation by respondent No.2 since notice is not issued. Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner is represented by learned A.G.P. 3. Counsel Mr. Deo, points out order passed below Exh.92 and 109 passed on 4th day of June, 2009 by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in inquiry application No.688/2006. Out of these two applications Exh.92 and Exh. 109 one of the application is filed by one Mr. Abhimanyu Virbhadrappa Rasure who 2 is petitioner No.1 in this writ petition. This application, appears to have been filed on May 25, 2009. Counsel for the petitioners took me to paragraph No.4 of the application. It is contended in this application by the petitioner No.1 that present respondent is interested person as he is General Category Member of the trust as per resolution dated 24.06.1994 and 31.07.1994. Further statement is made that this petitioner No.1 is valid and legal member of the trust. Allegation is made that reporting trustee had not issued notice of the meeting dated 26.11.2006 to the applicant/petitioner No.1. He also points out paragraph No.5 . We are concerned with paragraph No.4 only. Two statement made by the present petitioner one that he is general category member enrolled by the resolution dated 24.06.1994 and 31.07.1994. Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Deo, also points out copy of another application which is on record (page 77) i.e. at Exh. 109 before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. There also in paragraph No.2 statement is made that applicants of that application who are around 16 persons are valid, legal general category members of the trust enrolled by the Resolution dated 24.06.1994, 31.07.1994. These applicants are petitioners No. 2 to 17 in this writ petition. 4. Both the applications have been turned down by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner holding that these petitioners are neither member nor having interest. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel submitted matter was taken up before this court earlier and one injunction order was passed by this court and two injunction orders were passed by the joint Charity Commissioner against the present petitioners. Mr. Deo, learned counsel also submitted that there is chequered history. We are not concerned with that chequered history. Issue in the 3 case on hand is thus within the parameters of two question, ‘whether petitioners are members of the trust in question’, if yes, what is the material placed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner while application of the present petitioners under section73-A was considered. Second question whether ‘petitioner can be said to be persons having interest’ in view of section 2 (10) (d) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and if so what was the material placed before learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, at the time of hearing of the application. Mr. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in earlier proceedings order passed by the authorities under the Act were on record. In my view, if petitioners are moving learned Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 73-A , they are duty bound to place all the material on record before the authority that they are required to join in view of section 73-A, even if such material is placed on record, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner if inclines to join them as party, he may put some terms and conditions, taking into account various factors and more particularly administration of the trust in question. This petition invokes extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, 227. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that expeditious disposal was directed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region Latur and has been maintained by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.4404/2008. Order passed on August 20, 2008. It is to be mentioned that despite order passed by this court, still proceeding is pending before Assistant Charity Commissioner. 5. Writ petition stands dismissed, disposed of with further direction to learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to hear and decide proceeding enquiry application No.688/2006 on or before 10.03.2010. Parties who are present before 4 this Court i.e. appearing through the counsel are directed to remain present before learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad Region, Osmanabad on next Monday i.e. on 15.02.2010. Respondent No.2 is not represented in this writ petition but then if he is already party, he may remain present before learned Assistant Charity Commissioner on 15.02.2010. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel makes a statement that he will communicate this order to respondent No.2. Statement made is accepted, taken on record. Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, shall decide and dispose of application on or before 10.03.2010. In case of non co-operation of any of the party, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of law. Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( S. B. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. ..... aaa/3862.09