1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2010 Dr. Daulatro S. Aher & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus Shri. Jayesh D. Pawar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the Petitioners. Mrs. Gauri Jadhav for Respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. R. M. Patne, A.G.P. For Respondent Nos. 19, 20 and 21. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : JULY 7, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Gavnekar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mrs. Jadhav, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and 2. 2. By the impugned order dated 30th January, 2010, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik, allowed the application of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, thereby granting permission to them to institute suit in the form of the proposed draft under the provisions of Section 51 of the 2 Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act). 2. Mr. Gavnekar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners challenged the above order on two grounds. Firstly, the reliefs claimed in proposed suit of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 does not fall within the ambit of section 50, and secondly, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having alternative remedy to apply under section 19 of the said Act, cannot claim leave to file independent suit under section 51 of the said Act. Mrs. Jadhav, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the contrary supported the impugned order. 3. Having considering the rival submission and having gone through the impugned order, I do not see any merit in the Petition. I have perused the prayers of the proposed suit on page Nos. 89, 90 and 91. Under prayer clause (a), Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sought relief of declaration that the minutes of the meeting dated 15th May, 1998, is the document of formation of the Trust and the Resolution No.5 passed therein is the 3 document creating the Trust. Under prayer clause (b), a declaration is sought that the Trust is created by the Resolution of the Directors of the Sugar Factory and thereby the directors are the Ex-officio Trustees of the Trust. Under prayer (c) declaration is sought that Defendant Nos. 1 to 7, in the proposed suit have played fraud upon the Assistant Charity Commissioner by submission of independent document in the form of Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations for the purpose of registration of the society as well as registration of the Trust. Above prayers, in my opinion, are in the nature of relief mentioned in sub-clause (i) and (iv) of section 50 of the said Act. Thus, I do not find any merit in the first objection. So far as, the second objection namely the Respondents independent remedy under section 19 of the said Act is concerned, I find section 18 of the said Act relates with the registration of the trust and section 19 deals with the inquiry for such registration. The Trust in question is already registered, and therefore, the relief claimed in the proposed suit by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be granted by filing proceedings under section 19 of the said Act. Taking overall 4 view of the matter, I find that the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nashik, has approached the matter from correct point of view and no interference is required. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the petition and interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4. Mr. Gavnekar, at this stage seeks extension of ad-interim relief granted earlier on 29th April, 2010. The said prayer is opposed by Mrs. Jadhav, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. Jadhav, however, makes a statement on instructions that she will not object to enlargement of time for the period of six weeks to enable the Petitioner to file the written statement. The above statement made by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is accepted. In view of the statement of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, ad-interim relief need not be continued. (R. V. MORE, J.) 5