1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1709 OF 2010 Kapadne Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Kapadne, Taluka and District Dhule Through its Vice President .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule 3. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule 4. Pramod s/o Gulabrao Patil, Age 28 years, Occu.Service, R/o Kapadne, Tq. and Dist.Dhule 5. Rauf s/o Gani Pinjari, Age 32 years, Occu.Labourer, R/o As above ..RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Hon, Advocate holding for Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 Mr.R.L.Kute, Advocate holding for Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for respondents 4 and 5 (intervenors) CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 6th July 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 17.11.2009 to the extent of directing the petitioner to submit duly approved copy of the entry of Schedule -1 and also prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to permit the newly elected body to function and for other ancillary reliefs pertaining to the functioning of the newly elected body. 3. Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of 2009 came to be filed by the respondents to the petition, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 20.1.2009. The dispute before the learned Single Judge pertained to the election of the trust, particularly the Managing Committee. The Division Bench of this Court in letters patent appeal, to which one of us (N.D.Deshpande, J.) was a member, at paragraph 5 issued several directions which comprised of appointment of an Officer from the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner for conducting the elections. Several other directions were also issued by the 3 Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, ultimately disposed of the writ petition as well as the letters patent appeal. Consequent thereto, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule Region, Dhule by order dated 13.8.2009 appointed the Superintendent from his office to act as the Election Officer. The election programme came to be declared and pursuant thereto the results of the elections were announced and the new body of the petitioner – Trust came to be declared as elected. Surprisingly, the respondents have issued the communication directing the petitioner – Trust that the newly elected body of the petitioner – Trust will not be allowed to function unless and until the petitioner - Trust submits Schedule-1 entry. Since the elections were conducted, a change report has been submitted before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the said change report is said to be pending. 4. Mr.V.D.Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.6073 of 2005, Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, dated 22.9.2005. In the said judgment, a similar challenge was posed before the Division Bench i.e. whether the newly elected body could be kept out of office merely because the change report was pending. The Division Bench answered the aforesaid question by 4 referring a finding that pendency of change report would not come in the way of the newly elected body from taking charge and functioning as such. 5. In that light of the matter, the present petition deserves to be allowed as the controversy in the present petition stands squarely covered and answered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6073 of 2005, Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, dated 22.9.2005. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned communication is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/1709.10wp)