CHARU K MEHTA Vs. CHETAN P MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, on the application at Exhibit-3 in Application No.40 of 2009. Application No.40 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner under rule 36 (ii) (iii) of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules (for short, "the Rules"), seeking transfer of an application, being Application No.15 of 2008, instituted by respondent no.1 under section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act,1950 (for short, "the Act"). During pendency of this application (No.40 of 2009), the petitioner filed an application at Exhibit-3 for stay of the Application No.15 of 2008. By the impugned order, the Charity Commissioner has rejected the prayer for stay and hence this petition.

(2.) Respondent no.1 has filed the Application No.15 of 2008, under section 41-D of the Act seeking suspension/removal of the petitioner as a trustee of the Trust known as "Lilavati Medical Trust". Respondent No.1 has also filed Exhibit-2 application seeking interim order of suspension against the petitioner, pending hearing and final disposal of the application No.15 of 2008. Hearing of the Application No.15 of 2008 for framing of charges and of the application (Exhibit-2) for interim stay commenced on 11.9.2009. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 argued the matter for two days, i.e. 11.9.2009 and 16.9.2009 and then the Advocate for the petitioner also argued on 22.9.2009 and 24.9.2009. On 24.9.2009, the matter was adjourned to 29.9.2009 for further arguments. On that date and thereafter on three consecutive dates the petitioner filed applications for adjournment at Exhibits 59, 60, 61 and 62. The first three applications were allowed and the last application was rejected and the matter was closed for orders. This order of the learned JCC dated 27.10.2009 prompted the petitioner for filing the application for transfer (40 of 2009) on 3.11.2009. The transfer, as stated in the transfer application, was sought on the following grounds:

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Mr Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of hearing took me through the entire record and more particularly the impugned order, the Application No.40 of 2009, the affidavit of Charu Mehta dated 14.11.2009 (Exhibit-D to the writ petition) and the letter dated 10.10.2009 annexed to the said affidavit.