1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 520 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No.4111 of 2009 [decided] [Dr. Nitin R. Dhande Vs. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Apurv De, Adv., for the appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 02nd December, 2009. 1. Order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order passed by Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 36-A (3) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is under challenge. 2. Heard. 3. The point urged is that the modification by Joint Charity Commissioner in his earlier order is in the nature of review, and the jurisdiction to review own order cannot 2 be presumed. 4. To support his contention, learned Adv. Mr. De has placed reliance on following two reported judgments, namely:- [a] Patel Narshi Thakershi & ors. Vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [AIR 1970 SC 1273], and [b] Minaco Gem Movies Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. Central Board of Film Certification & ors. [1992 Mh.L.J. 615], laying down that the power of review cannot be presumed, and has to be expressly vested by statute. 5. This Court is of the view that power under Section 36-A (3) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is not a judicial function, though manner of exercise may be quasi-judicial. 6. In this view of the matter, the prayer for modification in view of changed circumstances would not per se amount to invoking powers of review of a judicial order passed between two contesting parties upon a lis. Admittedly, there was no lis. The order granting permission under Section 36A (3) is, therefore, administrative in nature. 3 7. The doctrine of law as relied upon from the judgments which are cited is a postulate in judicial functions. This doctrine, however, will not have application in pari materia, to functions which are not judicial totality, but are exclusive, administrative and supervisory or of the nature of control thereon. 8. No interference is, therefore, called for. Appeal is dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau|