JUDGMENT:- At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. H. D. Dangre for respondent no.1 has raised following objection as to maintainability of Writ Petition. The objection can be summarized as follows :-

The order, in question, is arising out of proceedings under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, which were finally decided, and an application under Section 70, which is In the shape of an appeal, is pending, wherein the prayer for stay has been rejected, which order is a decision capable of a further challenge under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Therefore, due to availability of alternate remedy, present Writ Petition is not maintainable.

2. According to learned Advocate Mr. Dangre, there is no distinction, such as orders and decrees under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act. Similarly, no distinction is made as interlocutory and final orders or decisions. In absence of such distinction, all orders will be capable of a challenge in the channel provided under the Act.

3. Learned Ad vocate Mr. Dangre has placed reliance on following reported judgments to substantiate his contention:-

[a] Income Tax Officer, Cannanore Vs. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi [AIR 1969 SC 430].

Click Here to Read the rest of this document