JUDGMENT:- This writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the directions issued on 54-2010 by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, on the application under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short. "the BPT Act"), registered as Application No.1520 of 2009. The petitioner is directed not to interfere in the affairs of Punyashlok Vidyaniketan, Khumari, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur, and further not to pose himself as the President of the said Trust and not to issue the communications to various authorities in the capacity of the President of the said Trust.

2. Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Shikshan Sanstha, Mansar, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur, is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the BPT Act. The said Trust is running Punyashlok Vidyaniketan, Khumari, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur, a School, which is recognized by the Department of Education, State of Maharashtra, and is being run on grandin-aid basis. The respondent No.2 Wasudev Bholanath Pund claims to be the Secretary of the said Trust, whereas the respondent No.3 Ku. Milan H. Gaudia claims to be the Head Mistress of the said School, approved by the Education Officer. The petitioner claims to be the President of the said Trust.

3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Application No.1520 of 2009 under Section 41 A of the BPT Act restraining the petitioner from unnecessarily interfering in the affairs of the School and from acting as the President of the Trust and issuing the communications in that capacity to various authorities. The said application has been allowed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner after hearing the parties concerned, issuing directions on 5-4-2010, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition.

4. The preliminary objection to entertain and decide this petition by the Single Judge has been raised by Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. According to him, the Single Judge exercises jurisdiction to decide the writ petitions only in respect of the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals or other quasi judicial authorities in exercise of its judicial or quasi judicial powers conferred by the enactments enumerated under sub-rules (1) to (43) of Rule 18 under Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. He submits that the Deputy Charity Commissioner neither does pass any order nor is conferred with judicial or quasi judicial powers under Section 41 A of the BPT Act. He submits that the matter pertains to the Division Bench, as this petition challenges the exercise of administrative power under Section 41 A of the BPT Act by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. He has relied upon the following judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges of this Court and also by the Apex Court :

(i) 1993(2) Mh.L.J. 1056 - Lahudas Sambhaji Karad v. State of Maharashtra and others.

(ii) 1994(1) Mh.L.J. 303 - Nahmal Kisanlalji Goenka and another v. Assistant Chairty Commissioner, Akola and another.

(iii) 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 548 : [2002(3) ALL MR 555] - Asaram Bhimrao Shinde and others v. State of Maharashtra and others.

(iv) 2008(2) Mh.L.J. 78 : [2008(1) ALL MR 664] - Raghunath s/o Motiram Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others.

(v) The order dated in Writ Petition No.4886 of 2009 on 2-8-2010 in the case of Maruti Pundlikrao Satalkar v. Ashok Ganpati Kokate and others.

(vi) (2002) 5 SCC 685 - Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and others.

5. Shri Sanyal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, on the other hand, urged that the Deputy Charity Commissioner exercises quasi judicial power under Section 41A of the BPT Act and hence in terms of the provisions of Chapter XVII, Rule 18(3) read with Explanation below sub-rule (43) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the matter can be dealt with and decided by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document