1. The petitioner, who has mentioned his age to be 68 years' in the Cause-title of the petition, is before this Court praying that:

“7(a) To quashed and set aside the orders dated 30-12-2011 and 6-1-2011 passed below Exhibits 102 and 118, which are at Annexure 'G' and 'I' respectively to the extent to which they are against the present petitioner and to the extent to which the order below Exhibit 102 seeks to impose condition on the petitioner and be further pleased to allow the application Exhibit 102 and 118 as prayed for before the learned Charity Commissioner.”

2.0 The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not keeping good health and therefore, he is not able to remain present in the Court for being cross examined.

2.1 The factual background of the case is that earlier, the petitioner had filed an application seeking his cross-examination to be held by a Court Commissioner. That application was not served to the other side and an order was obtained from the learned Charity Commissioner, who granted that application. This order of the learned Charity Commissioner was the subject matter of a petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 15169 of 2010, which came to be heard and decided by order dated 14th December 2010 (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi). Para 3 of the said order is relevant for the purpose. The same reads as under:

“3. Admittedly, said order was passed without hearing the petitioner who is respondent no.1 in the said proceedings. He had no opportunity to raise his objection since application was filed on the same date without copy to respondent no.1 and order was passed by the Charity Commissioner without notice to respondent no.1. Under the circumstances. Only for this short ground of no opportunity to the petitioner, impugned order dated 19.10.2009 is set aside. Application exh.102 stands revived, shall be decided by the Charity Commissioner after hearing the petitioner and respondents who shall appear before the Charity Commissioner without any notice on 20.12.2010. It is clarified that if the said date is not convenient to the Charity Commissioner, he may fix another date shortly, thereafter. I have expressed no opinion on the merits of the request made in application.” (emphasis supplied)

2.2 Thereafter, the petitioner filed application exh. 113. Along with that application, he produced a Medical Certificate. This application is decided by order dated 30th December 2010, which is under challenge in this petition. What is important is that the learned Charity Commissioner has recorded that, 'earlier, along with application, no Certificate of any Doctor was produced, whereas, Certificate dated 20th December 2010 of one Dr. Pinakin P. Soni is produced before the learned Charity Commissioner for consideration along with the application.

2.3 What is important is that the present respondents, on getting an opportunity, presented their case before the learned Charity Commissioner, which is recorded in Para 3 of the order impugned. It is specifically mentioned in that paragraph that 'the affidavit of one Shri Khimrajji Ganeshmalji is filed, wherein, it is stated that the present petitioner has made his candidature in the election of the 'Sangh'. The petitioner had remained present before the High Court; he frequently visits 'Popatben Pathshala'; he climbs stairs; he works of his own; he attends office; he had volunteered himself as a witness in a complaint filed by one of the members; from time to time he is seen around 'Derasar'; the Certificate does not show that he is 'Bedridden'; besides, the affidavits of one Shri Ashish Shantilal Shah, Kirtibhai Babulal Shah and Prakashbhai Vadilal Vasa are produced. In all these affidavits, it is mentioned that the petitioner moves during the day at any time; he goes to 'Popatben Pathshala' at 10:00 a.m.; during 'Chaturmas' he was seen going to first floor of 'Popatben Pathshala' and at the time of 'Upadhan Tap Mala Ropan' on 3r