1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3893 OF 2010. Mahaprakash Govinda Parbate and others. -: VERSUS :- Balkrushna Mahadeo Hatwar and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2010. Heard Shri V.R. Choudhari, learned Counsel for Petitioners, Smt. S.C. Deo, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent No.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. According to Shri Choudhari, learned counsel for petitioner the objection raised in the application by respondent no.1 about nature of document being forged, is already decided. He further states that the said fact and orders including the orders of this Court are overruled by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. In the alternative, 2 according to him in any case the Assistant Charity Commissioner being a quasi judicial authority could not have directed the Inspector working under him to verify the nature of document. Smt.Deo, learned counsel states that respondent no.1 has brought on record material to show that the documents are forged and that material has not been looked into by any of the authorities or court earlier. According to her the aspect is still not decided. She further states that only to assist him, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has sought help of the Inspector working under him. Learned A.G.P. is also supporting the impugned order. Whether the nature of document as forged or valid is already adjudicated upon or not is to be looked into by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Similarly, even if it is presumed that the document is forged, being a quasi judicial authority the Assistant Charity Commissioner himself has to record a finding in this respect and he cannot abdicate his essential quasi judicial function to his subordinate. The assistance of inspector sought by him for said purpose, therefore, cannot be sustained. In view of this, I find that the impugned order dated 22.04.2010 improper and 3 unsustainable. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The application filed by respondent no.1 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner is restored back to his file for taking fresh decision in accordance with law, after hearing the respective counsel. As the matter appears to be urgent, the Assistant Charity Commissioner shall take necessary decision as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. The parties to appear before the respondent no.2 on 27.10.2010 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.