(1) 17.WP3312.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3312 OF 2026 Bharat S/o Mahadeorao Rokde VERSUS Subhashchandra Tiwari And Others --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for the Petitioner(s). Mr. Amit M. Balpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE , J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026. P.C. 1. The present petition challenges order dated 07.03.2024 in Change Report No. 283/2023 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, and also an order in Appeal No. 16/2024 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, confirming the said order. It is a matter of fact that vide the said impugned orders in the petition, the change report filed by the present petitioner has been rejected. 2. I have heard Mr. N.D. Khamborkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Amit M. Balpande, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. 3. By taking me through both the impugned orders, it is the contention of Mr. N.D. Khaborkar that both the authorities have non- suited him on a single ground of non-filing of notice, which is mandatory for holding the meeting. He submits that in fact such a notice was filed and the authorities have wrongly construed otherwise. However, a deeper perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that, in addition to the fact that such a notice was not filed, such an admission is found in the cross-examination of the reporting Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:12778 (2) 17.WP3312.26 trustee, which fact can be seen from the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 4. I find nothing perverse in the impugned orders. The orders therefore do not have any jurisdictional error. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be rejected. 5. The petition is rejected. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Shubham