1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3883 OF 2009 VISHWANATHAPPA CHANDBASAPPA DHARNE. PETITIONER. V/S VIJAYKUMAR BAPURAO SHETE AND ORS. RESPONDENTS. MR. V.D. GUNALE, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER. 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. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad Region, Osmanabad below Exh.97 in an enquiry No.688/2006. 2. Mr. Gunale, counsel for the petitioner points out copy of the application filed by the present petitioner before learned Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 73-A of the B.P. Trust Act, 1950. Copy is on record annexure ‘D’ page 61. Mr. Gunale, read paragraph No.4. In substance, it is contended that present petitioner is member of the trust since establishment of the trust in question. He claims to be a life member. It is also alleged that there are two groups one is headed by Mr. M.S. Bidve other by advocate Mr. S.T. Girwalkar. We are concerned with the statement made by the petitioner that he is a life member and a person having interest within the meaning of section 2 (10) (d) of the B.P. Trust Act. Prayer made is that allow application filed by the present petitioner/applicant for addition of party-respondent and till then change report 2 may kindly be adjourned. This application is filed on 27th May, 2009. This has been rejected by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner holding that the present applicant is not member of the society nor having interest within meaning of section 2 (10) (d) of the B.P. Trust Act, 1950. This order is passed on 04.06.2009. 3. Mr. Gunale, counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner has been illegally removed by the respondents in a illegal meeting scheduled on 31.10.2006. Such illegal removal is not sufficient to take away status of the present petitioner as life member of the trust. He points out two letters which are produced on record with this writ petition annexure ‘C page 54 where name of the present petitioner Mr. Dharne is mentioned as Donar Member. According to him, because of illegal resolution, petitioner cannot be strapped with his status as member of the trust. 4. Reply to the query as to “whether material pointing out, as he is member of the trust is produced in the trial court”, answer is in negative. Reply to the query that “whether statement is made in the petition” , answer is in negative. He, however, emphasizes that stand taken by the respondents that petitioner is removed from the membership which according to him is per se illegal is accepted by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner and his application is turned down. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel, who appears for respondent No.1 has produced on record reply affidavit. His contention in substance is that in a meeting dated 31.10.2006 of the Managing committee resolution No.13 is passed and petitioner is no more member. 5. I am not entering into or recording any finding in relation to illegality of the meeting dated 31.10.2006 for the simple reason that proceeding challenging said meeting or issue of validity of the said meeting is not before this court today 3 in this writ petition. Incidentally it has to be observed that today, I have passed one more order, half an hour earlier, in writ petition No.3862/2009, dismissing the petition and directing the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide the enquiry application No.688/2006. 6. In this case also, there is no substance for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution. No case established at this stage to say that order impugned is illegal, perverse. 7. Writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Since I have given direction in writ petition No.3862/2009 for early disposal and directed parties in that writ petition to remain present, in this case, I am not giving any direction, since application of the present petitioner is rejected by the trial court for addition of the parties. Respondent No.1 in this writ petition is directed to remain present before learned Assistant Charity Commissioner 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. Learned Counsel Mr. Salunke makes a statement that he will communicate this order to respondent No.2 in both writ petitions. Statement made is accepted. Taken on record. ( S. B. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. ..... aaa/3862.09