- (1.)Heard respective counsel.
(2.)Rule. By mutual consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.
(3.)Yesterday, the arguments were opened by Shri Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner and were nearly concluded. We find a peculiar feature on the record of this matter that respondent No.4 is represented by two lawyers. The obvious reason for such representation is that there are factions in the management of the trust. Ramesh Ware claims to be Secretary but according to Shri Salunke, Advocate, by decision in Enquiry Application No.85 of 2001, learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur has removed the earlier trustees in a proceeding under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and therefore, Ramesh Ware is not a Secretary. So far as representation of management through Adinath Gaikwad, Joint Secretary is concerned, it is the contention of Advocate Shri Dhorde that he is injuncted by an order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad dt. 2.6.2007, copy of which is at paper book pages 50-54A. However, the order with which we are disposing of the writ petition, does not require us to resolve the controversy between the two factions of the management.