( 1 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has sought permission to amend the prayer clause. Permission is granted and he is directed to amend the prayer clause immediately.

( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed with the following prayers, including the amended prayer:

"28. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner prays as under:-That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 12. 01. 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 and thereupon the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 pursuant to and on the basis of application moved by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 under Section 50a of the B. P. T. Act, a copy whereof figures at Exhibit "d" to the memorandum of the present petition, and, thereupon, be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent No. 2 not to take cognizance of the application moved by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 under Section 50a of the B. P. T. Act, a copy whereof figures at Exhibit "d" to the memorandum of the present petition, for undertaking proceedings thereunder for framing of a Scheme in respect of Charutar Vidyamandal. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Honourable Court be pleased stay proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 pursuant to and on the basis of the application moved by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 under Section 50a of the B. P. T. Act, a copy whereof figures at Exhibit "d" to the memorandum of the present petition. That this Honourable Court be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper. That this Honourable Court be pleased to award costs;"

( 3 ) HEARD the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 and learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. In light of the view that the Court is inclined to take, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. RULE. The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties are directed to waive service of rule.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 3 to 5 herein moved an application under Section 50a of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (the Act) on 06. 01. 2006. It is not necessary for the present to record various proceedings which took place before respondent No. 2 in the interregnum, except for noting the fact that on 15. 07. 2006 respondent No. 2 made an order for issuance of a public notice so as to inform all interested persons regarding the application under Section 50a of the Act and the proceedings pending before respondent No. 2.

( 5 ) ON 22. 09. 2006 the petitioner herein moved an application Exh. 77 whereunder it was prayed that the following preliminary issue may be framed and decided by respondent No. 2: "whether it is expedient and necessary in the interest of the Trust to frame the scheme of this Trust"

( 6 ) WHILE passing the order dated 12. 01. 2007 respondent No. 2 records in Paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order that vide pursis Exh. 80 the applicants (respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein) have agreed to the said preliminary issue being decided.

( 7 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in the impugned order respondent No. 2 has failed to assign any reason why application Exh. 77 for deciding the preliminary issue is rejected. As against that, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 authority has sought to sustain the impugned order on the ground that the issue whether a scheme is required under Section 50a (1) of the Act to be framed or not is yet open and hence, the petitioner cannot have any grievance at this stage. It was also submitted that considering order dated 15. 07. 2006, namely, whereunder respondent No. 2 authority directed issuance of public notice and the said order having not been challenged, it was not open to the petitioner to raise any challenge as to initiation of proceeding

Click Here to Read the rest of this document