1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2010 Marotrao s/o. Ramchandra Sorekar & another ....Petitioners. Versus Madan s/o. Bapurao Naik and another ....Respondents. Shri. Kailash Jadhav, Advocate h/f. Shri. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 26th March, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The interim order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner Aurangabad on 16.10.2008, directing framing of charge against the two trustees of the trust/petitioners herein, is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2. The petitioners contend that all the trustees of the trust are required to be impleaded as party respondents to the proceedings and in absence of all the trustees of the trust, proceedings are not entertainable. 2 It is further contended that the act or omission against the petitioners/ trustees is not a function attributable to the petitioners alone and other trustees or the employees of the school are also responsible for performing the functions in respect of which a default is alleged. 3. That, so far as the liability or responsibility of the petitioner trustees in relation to the charge is concerned, the same is the matter of consideration, tobe dealt with by the Joint Charity Commissioner while conducting the inquiry. At this stage of the proceedings, no interference is called for in the interlocutory order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner during the pendency of proceedings under section 41 D of the Bombay Public Trust Act. In exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for, hence, petition stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp84.10