1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2027 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5264 OF 2008 Pragati Shikshan Mandal, Thile, Through its Secretary, Shri Shankar Kanhu Dhirde, ...Appellant. v. 1 Shri Waman Pandurang Walimbe & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. D.B.Patil, adv. For the Appellant. Mr. A.R.Pitale, adv. For the Respondent No.1. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 27th July , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 It appears that conflicting change reports have been submitted by the appellant through Shankar Kanhu Dhirde and the respondent no.1 Waman Pandurang Walimbe. Both the change reports were rejected and the order of rejection of the change report was challenged by Shankar before the Joint Charity Commissioner. There was no challenge to the rejection of Change Report submitted by the respondent no.1. Waman Walimbe. Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant. That order was 2 challenged by the appellant in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.10 of 2007 before the District Court. By the order dated 26.3.2007, the Additional District Judge confirmed the order of rejection of Change Reports. However, he directed Assistant Charity Commissioner to settle the final voters’ list and to hold fresh elections. Admittedly, after that order, Assistant Charity Commissioner had prepared the voters’ list on the basis of register maintained by the respondent no.1/Waman Walimbe. Election was held on that basis and the respondent no.1 submitted a Change Report but that Change Report was also rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner holding that the voters’ list was prepared only on the basis of register maintained by the respondent no.1 which could not be done in view of the order of the District Court. Thereafter, the Assistant Charity Commissioner considered all the material, documents and the registers maintained by the parties and passed the order on 28th May, 2009 settling the list of 27 members as voters. On that basis election has been already held and the results of the election has also been declared yesterday, i.e., on 26-7-2009. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that in view of this development, present appeal, wherein the order of the District Court dated 26.3.2007 is challenged, has become infructuous and does not survive. 3 3 It is material to note that in the present appeal against the order of the District Court dated 26.3.07, no stay was granted by this Court and, therefore, order of the District Court has been acted upon by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and he has passed the order dated 28.5.09 wherein he has minutely mentioned on what basis he has prepared the final voters’ list consisting of 27 members and on that basis election has been held and completed. In view of this, in my considered opinion, nothing survives in the present appeal. Infact, if any party is aggrieved by the order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, that order could be challenged by preferring the appeal against that order before the appropriate authority. The learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that the said order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 28.5.2009 is already challenged before the District Court. 4 If the Change Report is submitted, at that time, also objection can be taken about the election and the results therein. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, the present appeal has become infructuous and should be disposed off accordingly. 4 5 In the result, appeal being infructuous, stands disposed off accordingly. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application no.5264 of 2008 for stay does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. As an application filed by the appellant is pending before the District Court, the said application shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the disposal of the present appeal. All points are left open. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)