1

WP6412-11

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 6412/2011

(BABASAHEB SANSTHAN, WASHIM VERSUS SHASHIKANT VYANKATESH DEO & OTHERS)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri S.R. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

DATE : JANUARY 11

, 2012

.

By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order

passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim on

06.08.2011 directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to file draft

of the plaint, which the respondent nos.1 and 2 wanted to file

in the civil Court.

The respondent nos.1 and 2 had sought

permission of the Assistant Charity Commissioner for filing

the suit against the petitioner. The petitioner i.e. non-

applicant to the said application filed by the respondent nos.1

and 2 for grant of permission under Section 50 of the Bombay

Public Trusts Act, 1950, filed an objection on several grounds.

By the impugned order dated 06.08.2011, the Assistant

Charity Commissioner directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to

file the draft of the plaint, which they wanted to file in the

Court for consideration as it was necessary under Rule 27 of

the Bombay Public Trusts Rules to endorse on the plaint

before granting consent to file the suit.

There is nothing wrong in the impugned order

directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to file a draft of the

2

WP6412-11

plaint. The writ petition is premature. Nothing has been

done by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the matter by

the impugned order except directing the respondent nos.1

and 2 to file the draft of the plaint. The petitioner cannot be

aggrieved by this order at all.

Since the writ petition is devoid of merit, the writ

petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

APTE