1 (CP 192 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 192 OF 2010 Bahujan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Islampur ...Petitioner Vs. A.V. Mishra Astt. Charity Commissioner, Sangli and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Dr.Dattajirao Pandurang Mane -Party in person Mr. S.N. Bhosale -AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr.Y.A. Gangal a/w. Mr.Ashok Gade for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the Petitioner, who is appearing in person, the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2 (CP 192 of 2010) 2. Brief facts are that one Bahujan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Islampur is registered with the Public Trust Registration Office Sangli under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Petitioner is a trustee of the said trust. His case is that pursuant to the elections which were held from time to time, the said elected body took charge of the said Trust and, accordingly, change report was filed and the change report was accepted and entries were made accordingly for the period from 2004 to 2009. His grievance is that the Respondent No.1 deleted these entries in spite of various orders which were passed in favour of the Petitioner and had thereby committed contempt of this Court. A detailed affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent No.1. He has stated that the change report, which was initially granted in favour of the Petitioner, was set aside by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the matter was remanded back on 3 (CP 192 of 2010) two occasions and as a result of that, the initial entries were set aside. It is submitted that the proceedings regarding the said change report are still pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner. 3. The Petitioner, who is appearing in person, however, disputes this fact and submits that though the said order had become finalized, the names have been deleted and, therefore, contempt has been committed by the Respondents. In my view, after perusal of the affidavit filed by Mr. A.V. Mishra, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, it does appear that various proceedings have been filed at various stages and which is evident from the summary of the proceedings which are given by him in his affidavit in reply at paragraph 10. 4. That being the position, in my view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 are accepted. It is, thus, clear that the 4 (CP 192 of 2010) said proceedings are not yet finalized. The Petitioner – appearing in person is not in a position to explain the final orders. Apart from that orders have been passed under section 41A by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli in the year 2000. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that the said order has been confirmed by this Court – Brother D.K. Deshmukh J. dated 15th October, 2002 are still in force. 6. Taking into consideration the various proceedings which have been filed by the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 against each other, as a result, in my view, this is not a fit case to issue any notice of contempt against the Respondents. Contempt Petition is dismissed. 5 (CP 192 of 2010) 7. Needless to state that it is always open for the Petitioner to take appropriate proceedings after final orders are passed by the competent authorities. (V.M. KANADE J.)