1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5946 OF 2009 Shri. Ramesh Narayan Patil .. Petitioner Vs Shri. Digambar Haribhau Mhatre & Others .. Respondents S.M. Sabrad for the petitioner P.S. Dani for respondent nos. 1 to 4 A.P. Vanarse, AGP for the State CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 10th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the learned AGP for respondent no. 5 - The Assistant Charity Commissioner. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12th June, 2009 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, this petition has been preferred. By the said order, the application of the petitioner for transfer of the proceedings to another competent RMA wp5946-09.sxw 2 authority came to be rejected. 3. The change report nos. 378 of 2008 and 446 of 2008 were filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Raigad whereas change Report nos. 379 of 2008, 97 of 2008 and 446 of 2008 were filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4. All these matters were pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Raigad. The petitioner preferred an application for transfer before the Charity Commissioner stating therein that the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner is biased against him and is passing illegal orders and orders without jurisdiction and that the respondents were in contact with the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, hence he was passing orders in their favour. The petitioner thus, expressed apprehension that he will not get justice and prayed that the matter be transferred to another competent authority. However, in order to show that illegal orders or orders without jurisdiction are passed in favour of the respondent, no document, circumstances or instance was pointed out by the petitioner. No doubt, some orders have been passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner which are in favour of the respondents, however, it is seen that the RMA wp5946-09.sxw 3 petitioner has not challenged any of these orders. Thus, his grievance does not appear to be correct. The Charity Commissioner has rightly observed that to substantiate his allegation, no documents, circumstances or instances have been pointed out by the applicant i.e the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material was produced before the Charity Commissioner to substantiate the allegation that the respondents were in contact with the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Assistant Charity Commissioner was managed by them. In support of this contention, he has placed relilance on an N.C which was filed by the present petitioner at Mora Sagarp Police Station, Uran, Dist. Raigad. He referred to the portion in the N.C wherein it is stated that the respondents had threatened one Dattatraya Bhoir and Pandurang Patil and they informed him that they and the petitioner may take any steps but it would be of no use as the police as well as the Charity Commissioner have been managed by them. First of all, it is seen that as far as incident of threatening by the respondents to Dattatraya Bhoir and Pandurang Patil is concerned, they themselves RMA wp5946-09.sxw 4 have not lodged any complaint but the petitioner who is not an eye witness has lodged the complaint. The said N.C. by the petitioner is at the best based on hearsay. In the N.C, it is specifically stated that the said Dattatraya Bhoir and Pandurang Patil came to the house of the petitioner and narrated the incident to him and based on this narration, he had given complaint to the police station which is registered as N.C. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has also made allegations that the police is managed. As far as allegation in the N.C is concerned that the police is managed, that itself is not found to be true from the very fact that the police took note of the complaint of the petitioner and in fact, they have registered the complaint given by the petitioner. It is not his allegation that the said N.C is not property recorded. From this very fact, it can be seen that the police had not at all been managed as allegedly stated by respondents to Dattatraya Bhoir and Pandurang Patil. From this it is clear that the allegation made in the N.C. against the police is unfounded. Thus, it becomes evident from all the facts that the allegation made against the Charity Commissioner is also unfounded. I am of the opinion that no reliance can be RMA wp5946-09.sxw 5 placed on such N.C. which is based on hearsay evidence wherein it is clearly seen that the allegation against the police is totally unfounded. 5. No doubt, in the order dated 12th June, 2009, the Charity Commissioner was not inclined to look into the transfer application and it was not supported by the affidavit. However, it can be seen that the said application bears verification and in such case, it could have been looked into. 6. However, looking to the facts narrated in paragraphs 3 and 4, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for transfer of the petition. Writ petition is dismissed. 7. The Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide the change reports and the applications without being influenced by any observations in this order. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA wp5946-09.sxw 6 RMA wp5946-09.sxw