ORDER 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. Leave granted. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants, pointing out to the various reliefs sought for in the writ petition and referring to the grounds raised in the review petition seeking review of the impugned order as well as the written submissions said to have been filed on their behalf before the High Court after taking leave, orally by the learned counsel, that the High Court did not deal with all the contentions raised by the appellants in the writ petition and did not consider the grounds raised in the review petition. The impugned order only deals with the appointment of Shri Y.A. Patharikar as Joint Charity Commissioner and orders dated 10-9-2001 and 13-9-2001, although other orders were also challenged in the writ petition. 4. Despite service of notice, the contesting respondents are neither present nor represented. 5. The learned counsel for the State, however, made submissions justifying the appointment of Shri Y.A. Patharikar as Joint Charity Commissioner. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the High Court ought to have disposed of the writ petition dealing with all the contentions raised in view of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Under the circumstances, without stating anything more on the merits of the respective contentions, we set aside the impugned orders, remit the writ petition to the High Court to dispose of it on merits dealing with all the contentions raised by the appellants. We also make it clear that all the contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the High Court in the writ petition. 7. The civil appeals are, accordingly, allowed. 8. No costs.