1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1078 of 2009 Pankaj Kowli ....Petitioner v/s. Dr. S.S.Rege & 8 ors. ....Respondents A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w. Sanjeev P. Kadam & Pankaj Kowli i/b. U.M.Jhaveri for the petitioner. P.P.Chawan i/b. ARA Law for respondent no.1. Sandeep K. Shinde for respondent no.2. R.M.Vasudeo for Respondents 3, 4 & 5. Deepa Chavan for Respondent no.6. Sagheer A. Khan i/b. Judicare Law Associates for Respondent No.8 CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- July 07, 2009. P.C. Preliminary objection is raised by the Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 8 about the maintainability of Writ Petition against the impugned decision before the Single Judge of this Court. He has invited my attention to Rule-636 and in particular clauses (i) to (xxxiv) of sub-rule 1 to contend that the enactment of Bombay Public Trust Act is not included in the list of enactments referred to therein. For that reason, the matter will have to proceed before the 2 Division Bench in view of the sub-rule 1(b) of the said rule. 2. Realising this position, Counsel for the Petitioner states on instructions that in that case the Petitioner be permitted to convert this Petition into one under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have no objection in that behalf. However, in that case the matter will now proceed before the Appellate Side of the Bombay High Court. 3. Office to process the Petition and place it on the Appellate Side of the High Court to be listed before the appropriate Bench. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)