JUDGMENT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer (A) made in this writ petition is for issuance of rule. Second and important prayer, in this writ petition, which is made in prayer clause (B) is interesting and I am reproducing the same herein below: "B) Issue writ of certiorary or any other writ or order and call for record and proceedings of Misc. Application NO.286/ 08 decided on 4.12.08 by A.C.C., Solapur and of Appeals 72 and 74 of 2006 decided on 13.2.2008 from JI. Charity Commissioner, Latur and on perusal of same or otherwise quash and set aside both above orders more particularly about and to the extent issue of Membership and holding of election by officer of the Charity Organization. ,. After this prayer, interim relief is sought in prayer clause (C). This petition seems to have been filed on With December, 2008. To understand the controversy, various events and proceedings, in substance, needs to be listed. as below: (i) Respondent No.3 Govindrao Jaiwantrao Salunke had filed change report N 0.180 I of 2004 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. It was, thereafter, transferred on account of order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4683 of 2004, to learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur. (ii) This change report No.1801 of 2004, filed under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950), was rejected by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur by its order passed on 8th November, 2006. Present Petitioner Dattatraya Patwari was the Respondent No.1 in this change report No.1801 of 2004. While rejecting the change report, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur had directed the Secretary of the Trust Mr. Dattatraya Patwari (petitioner in this petition) to deposit the expenses for election with the Election Officer. He was further directed to make proclamation in every school run by the trust to call for teachers willing to become members of the trust as per the provisions of the rules and regulations of the trust. The Election Officer was further directed to submit his report of election within six weeks. After passing of this order, by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, provisional voters list was published. Names of about 50 donors were not shown in that list. One Mr. The Election Officer was further directed to submit his report of election within six weeks. After passing of this order, by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, provisional voters list was published. Names of about 50 donors were not shown in that list. One Mr. Anil Govindrao Patil along with others filed Writ Petition No.7918 of 2006 with a grievance of their non in clusion. This petition was taken up for admission before the learned Division Bench of this Court. The learned Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 30th November, 2006. By this order, withdrawal of the writ petition has been permitted by the learned Division Bench of this Court and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. (iii) There were two appeals pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur. One appeal was registered as No.72 of 2006. This appeal seems to have been tiled on 29th November, 2006. In this Appeal No.72 of 2006, Govindrao Salunke Respondent No.3, was appellant. Petitioner Dattatrya was the Respondent No.3 in Appeal No.72 of 2006. There was one more appeal pending before the same authority, tiled by the present petitioner Mr. Dattatrya which was registered as Appeal No.7 4 of 2006. Both these appeals were taken up for hearing and have been decided by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur by its common judgment and order passed on 13th February, 2008. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner, by the operative part of the common judgment, partly allowed Appeal No.72 of 2006 tiled by Mr. Govindrao Salunke Respondent No.3, in this writ petition. This appeal was partly allowed to the extent of issue of membership, without costs. Appeal No.74 of 2006, wherein present petitioner Dattatraya was Appellant, was dismissed without costs. In substance, Appeal No.72 of 2006 filed by Respondent No.3 Govindrao was allowed to the extent of membership. This appeal pertains to change report No.I801 of 2004. It has been further observed, in this operative part of the common judgment and order that change report bearing Nos .1800 of 2004 and 180 I of 2004 are remitted back to the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur. Direction was given, after decision of the issue of membership, for appointment of the Election Officer for holding election of the trust in accordance with the constitution. This judgment was handed down by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Division, Latur on 13th February, 2008. Direction was given, after decision of the issue of membership, for appointment of the Election Officer for holding election of the trust in accordance with the constitution. This judgment was handed down by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Division, Latur on 13th February, 2008. (iv) The Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3 of2008 was filed by the trust in question through Mr. Dattatraya Bhimrao Patwari - present petitioner along with seven other persons in the Court of learned Additional District Judge at Omerga. Copy of this application is tendered by learned counsel Mr. Dhorde. It is marked by letter "X" for identification and taken on record. Copy is served to learned counsel Mr. Mantri for the Petitioner. This Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008 seems to had been tiled by the present Petitioner and other seven persons against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur in Appeal No.72 of 2006, the appeal which was allowed by the said authority. In para 6 of the judgment, learned District Judge No.1, Omerga has recorded brief facts and controversial issue regarding membership amongst the warring parties. In para 3, the learned District Judge has made reference to two appeals i.e. Nos.72 of 2006 and 74 of 2006 and disposal of those appeals by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner by its judgment and order dated 13th February, 2008. In para 6, the learned District Judge has referred to the reported judgment cited at Bar. Three points were framed in para 7. Point No.1 was as to whether order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal Nos.72 of 2006 and 74 of 2006 dated 13th February, 2008 is legal and proper. Finding recorded is in affirmative. In para 8, the learned District Judge has made a reference to order passed by this Court in writ petition directing the early disposal of Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008. In para 9, learned District Judge has also made a reference of the direction given by this Court to the Joint Cbarity Commissioner to exercise all t1Je powers which are available under section 70 of t1Je Act of 1950 and decide t1Je appeals which were pending before him. In para 13, various documents Exhibits-n, 73,74,78,79 have been referred to by learned District Judge. In para 13, various documents Exhibits-n, 73,74,78,79 have been referred to by learned District Judge. The learned District Judge, in paras 14, 15 and 16, after recording various observations, came to a conclusion that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not committed any error in partly allowing the appeal No.3 of 2004. Ultimately, this Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008 carne to be dismissed, with costs. This order was passed on 25th May, 2008. Writ Petition No.8031 of 2oo6 was filed by one Mr. Bhaskar Shankarrao Solankar and another against the State of Maharashtra and others. Respondent No.4 was the trust 1:IJrough its Secretary - present writ petitioner Mr. Dattatraya. There was one more writ petition No'&049 of 2006 filed by Da1ltatraya Vittharao Birajdar and one more person Raghunath Shamrao Murate. Charity Commissioner and others were party respondents, including the present writ petitioner Mr. Dattatxaya Patwarl as Respondent No.8. These two writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Division Bench of this Court by t1Je order passed on 5th December, 2006. Direction given in this writ petition have been referred to by the learned District Judge No.1 in Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008. Speaking to minutes was required, motion was made in the common order of learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.S031 of 2006 and 80490 (2006. Learned Division Bench heard learned counsel for the parties and speaking to minutes motion was disposed .of. Against this order-, S.L.P. was filed in the Supreme Court, it was registered as Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12078 of 2007. This matter was taken up before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court did not interfere with the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. It was specifically directed by the Supreme Court that Joint Charity Commissioner to dispose of both the anneals (Anneal Nos.72 of 2006 and 74 of 2006) within a reasonable time preferably within six months from the date of receipt of CODV of this order. Copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Joint Charity Commissioner. The CODV is made available by learned counsel Mr. R.N. Dhorde. It is also given to learned counsel Mr. R.R. Mantri. This CODV is marked by letter "Y" for identification and, taken on record. Copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Joint Charity Commissioner. The CODV is made available by learned counsel Mr. R.N. Dhorde. It is also given to learned counsel Mr. R.R. Mantri. This CODV is marked by letter "Y" for identification and, taken on record. It is in this context, as, noted in the foregoing paragraphs, that these two anneals have been decided and disposed of by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Latur. (v) Writ Petition No.2182of 2006, filed by the trust, through its Secretary, was before the learned Single Bench of this Court ,on 31st March, 2008. That 'time, the occasion was rejection of the interim relief, prayer made by the present Petitioner, who was applicant in Misc. Civil Application No.3 'of 2008. This Court, after hearing the parties, disposed of the writ petition with direction to the learned District Judge, Omerga to decide and dispose of Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. This Court was again required to note all facts and events while disposing of this writ petition. 1'0dayduring the course of argument, learned counsel Mr. Dhorde submitted that Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008 has been finally dismissed with costs by the learned District Judge-l, Omerga on 22ud May, 2008. Said copy is amnexl1re-H, already taken on record. 3. Mr. Mantri fairly concedes that dais order, passed by the learned District Judge, 1, Omerga in Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008, decided on 22nd May, 2008, bas not been challenged by the present petitioner by any other petition or proceeding in this Court or in any other Court. 4. Mr. Mantri, learned counsel has invited my attention to page Nos. 192 and 196 of the compilation. Page 192 is a copy of transfer application No.6 of 2008, seems to have been filed by Govindrao Jaiwant Salunke - Respondent No.3 in this writ petition. It seems that the said application was filed seeking transfer of remitted inquiry i.e. 286 of 2008 from Assistant Charity Commissioner, Salapur to Assistants Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. Ground of seeking transfer, revealed from para 9, is allegation of demand of bribe of Rs.7 Lakhs allegedly made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur. In support of this allegation, Mr. Mantri, learned counsel, has pointed out page 196 i.e. affidavit filed by Applicant Govindrao, who is Respondent No.3 in this writ petition. Ground of seeking transfer, revealed from para 9, is allegation of demand of bribe of Rs.7 Lakhs allegedly made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur. In support of this allegation, Mr. Mantri, learned counsel, has pointed out page 196 i.e. affidavit filed by Applicant Govindrao, who is Respondent No.3 in this writ petition. The learned authority has passed an order, page 195, and permitted the Applicant to withdraw the said application fortra1'lsfer. Fact remains that, ultimately said application, filed by Govindrao, has been withdrawn; authority proceeded further and decided the Misc. Civil Application No.286 of 2008. I have considered the submissions. I am examining the order in this writ petition, on judicial side, I do not wish to express any opinion regarding allegation of bribe. Parties may have their own pleas and at times they are making allegations. Such allegations, in my view, do not have implication on judicial side in the facts and circumstances of this case. I am appreciating the arguments addressed to the Court by learned counsel Mr. R.R. Mantri and others, who are appearing for various parties. Such filing of the application by Respondent No.3 Mr. Govindrao, in my view, does not have any bearing on the merit of the case on hand. 5. Next submission made by learned counsel Mr. R.R. Mantri is regarding the observations made by the same officer, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. These observations, pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Mantri, are from page 75. It is observed by the authority concerned: "By very naked eyes, it can be seen that. Exhs.2, 3 & 4 in Change Report No.1l6/ 1984 have been inserted by removing original papers. He invited my attention towards the original record and proceeding of Change Report No.1 16/1984. No doubt, mere watching the papers in the said proceeding, it appears that, the Paper of Exhs.2, 3 & 4 is new paper in comparison to the paper of Roznama, Exh.1 and Exh.5.” 6. Mr. Mantri has also invited my attention to observations in the order passed in Change Report No.1801 of 2004. Grievance raised is regarding the figure 00' membership, alleged by the party i.e. 350. Mr. Mantri then invited my attention to page 183 of the compilation. This is an application Exillibit-243 in Misc. Civil Application No.286 of 2008, this application seems to have been filed by the present Petitioner. Grievance raised is regarding the figure 00' membership, alleged by the party i.e. 350. Mr. Mantri then invited my attention to page 183 of the compilation. This is an application Exillibit-243 in Misc. Civil Application No.286 of 2008, this application seems to have been filed by the present Petitioner. Prayer made in that application was regarding referring the file in Change Report inquiry Nos.116 or 1984 and 480 of 1994 to the Handwriting Expert and report of the expert. This application seems to have been filed on 27th October, 2008. Order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapnr in that proceeding on 6th November., 2008 is pointed by learned 'counsel Mr. Mantri. Insertion, according to learned counsel for the Petitioner, has been accepted by the Joint Charity Commissioner. In support of this submission, my attention is invited to page 135 and 175 of the compilation. Mr. Manlri submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record for the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to reach to a finding in Misc. Civil Application No.286 of 2008. There be some affidavits med. According to the Petitioner, petitioner is entitled to cross examine the deponents, it was demanded and was not accorded by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. Pages 36 and 37 of the compilation have been referred. 7. Counsel for the Petitioner then made a submission regarding amendment to the constitution of the trust in question in the year 1994. There, he has referred to pages 44 and 49. According to him, issue of amendment of constitution is still pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. On this back ground according to Mr. Mantri, learned Advocate, the Assistant Charity Commissioner ought not to have passed the impugned order in Misc. Civil Application No.286 of 2008. Mr. Mantri, learned counsel concluded by seeking quashment and setting aside the order and allowing the petition. 8. Mr. Mantri has invited my attention to various judicial pronouncements in support of his submissions. The judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court, in the matter of Berar General Education Society, Akola Vs. Jt. Charity Commissioner, Amravati and another" reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 189 . It is eight paragraphs' judgment. I have read the judgment in its entirety. In my view, facts are altogether different. The judgment has no application to the facts obtaining in the case on hand. Then Mr. Jt. Charity Commissioner, Amravati and another" reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 189 . It is eight paragraphs' judgment. I have read the judgment in its entirety. In my view, facts are altogether different. The judgment has no application to the facts obtaining in the case on hand. Then Mr. Mantri invited my attention to another judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court in the matter of "Dinkar Krishnarao Mamliwar and others Vs. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay and others" reported in 1993 B.C.J. 428. There, according to Mr. Mantri placate B is relevant. There, this Court has considered the definition of person having interest under section 2(10) of the Act of 1950. Facts have been noted by the Court in para 2 of the judgment. This judgment also, in my view, does not support the submissions of learned counsel Mr. Mantri. Mr. Mantri relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of "Smt. Damyanti Nbranga Vs. The Union of India and others" reported in AIR 1971 SC 966 . The Supreme Court, in that matter, has considered Article. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Mr. Mantri relies on observations of the Supreme Court in paras 6,7 and 8. I have read these observations with great care and caution. One of the issue therein was in regard to sub-section (4) of section 4 i.e. retrospective amendment with effect from the date of the Act came into force by the Sahitya Sammelan Amendment Act, 1963. In the case on hand, there is no issue before me regarding retrospective amendment. This judgment also, in my view, does not help the present Petitioner. 9. Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel has submitted that Writ Petition No.8049 of 2006 was filed in this Court. Said petition was withdrawn. He has explained the situation as to why it was filed and withdrawn. Election as of today, is declared, copy of election programme is annexed with the reply. This reply is marked by letter "2" for identification and taken on record. Copy is served to learned counsel Mr. R.R. Mantri. Last page of this compilation, i.e. counter affidavit, displays the election programme commencing from 22nd December, 2008. The date of allotment of symbol is 2nd January, 2009. Withdrawal of the nomination is scheduled on 30th of December, 2008. In fact, nominations are to be made available from 22nd December, 2008 till 23rd December, 2008. R.R. Mantri. Last page of this compilation, i.e. counter affidavit, displays the election programme commencing from 22nd December, 2008. The date of allotment of symbol is 2nd January, 2009. Withdrawal of the nomination is scheduled on 30th of December, 2008. In fact, nominations are to be made available from 22nd December, 2008 till 23rd December, 2008. Valid candidates list is to be displayed on 1st January, 2009. I have considered the entire election programme. 10. Mr. Mantri, learned counsel, has also invited my attention to Supreme Court judgment in the case of "Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School and another Vs. Smt. Mohinder Kaur and another" reported in 1993 AIR SCW 3006. Sections 12 and 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1870 and Article 30 of the Constitution of India, was considered. The issue herein is in respect of modification of the scheme of the constitution under section 50-A of the Act. Scheme is provided under section 50-A, for modification and/or change in the constitution of the trust. 11. With an equanimity, I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have listed the events, various proceedings with the assistance of all the learned counsel appearing in the case. Now, I am not counting and putting on record the rounds of litigation to this Court. I am only referring that the elections ultimately have been declared in view of the directions approved by the Supreme Court. Such election, which is at most advanced stage, in my view, resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction, could not be arrested. Parties are litigating for their own contentions and in view of the statutory provisions. However, this Court has to keep in mind a fact that this Court is flooded as well as loaded with various matters for admission hearing itself. Despite this fact, I have given more than sufficient time to all the counsel while addressing the Court. I do not see any perversity, arbitrariness or illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition. 12. Grievance was raised by learned counsel Mr. Dhorde that there is suppression of fact on the part of the Petitioner. I have examined this grievance. Pointed query was put to learned counsel Mr. Mantri to point out a statement made in the writ petition regarding disclosure of a fact that the petitioner himself had filed Misc. 12. Grievance was raised by learned counsel Mr. Dhorde that there is suppression of fact on the part of the Petitioner. I have examined this grievance. Pointed query was put to learned counsel Mr. Mantri to point out a statement made in the writ petition regarding disclosure of a fact that the petitioner himself had filed Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008 before the learned District Judge. There, the interim stay was rejected. Petition was filed in this Court. Even the fact of dismissal of Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008 was informed to the Court by counsel Mr. Dhorde. Ordinary copy was provided by him. Now. time has come that Court must consider imposition of costs in the matter. The Supreme Court did not approve the ordinary orders of the subordinate Courts, including the High Court, that "parties to bear their own costs", "no costs" etc. These observations are made by the Supreme Court in the matter of "Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India" reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 : [2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 876]. In my view, costs are not to be imposed only in favour of the winner because he won the litigation at the level of this Court i.e. High Court. The costs are required to be imposed, to send clear and right message to the litigating fraternity that suppression of facts is not the phenomena approved at-least by the High Court, especially when extra ordinary jurisdiction is invoked. Top of it, in the case on hand, such jurisdiction is invoked couple of days prior to the commencement of the Christmas Vacations, 2008. 13. On the point of costs, I have heard learned counsel, Mr. Mantri firstly, being the counsel addressing the Court on behalf of Petitioner. He invited my attention to page 5 of the petition which is synopsis. That text I am reproducing herein below: "31.3.08. The judgment of It. Charity Commissioner about Administrative body challenged before District Court. Rejected Writ Petition filed against it (No.2l81/08) also rejected." 14. Mr. Mantri fairly concedes that apart from this part of the synopsis no other statement is there in the writ petition regarding disclosure of the fact which, according to Mr. Dhorde, the learned counsel has been deliberately suppressed. Mr. Mantri, learned counsel further submits that Misc. Rejected Writ Petition filed against it (No.2l81/08) also rejected." 14. Mr. Mantri fairly concedes that apart from this part of the synopsis no other statement is there in the writ petition regarding disclosure of the fact which, according to Mr. Dhorde, the learned counsel has been deliberately suppressed. Mr. Mantri, learned counsel further submits that Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008 was restricted to the extent of issue of membership alone. The applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are entertained and orders are passed by this Court on the basis of the pleadings made, which are verified, meaning thereby that the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their pleadings and other material placed on record. This Court insisted for disclosure of the true facts. Oral evidence, cross examination etc. is not adhered to by this Court. The parties, who are filing their pleadings, in this Court, are supposed to plead material and true facts. It has to be true disclosure. Disclosure in petition is highly important and significant for the reason that the petition is verified by the petitioner. Thus, there is a verified statement before the Court, prima facie to accept the facts pleaded. In contrast to this, synopsis is a practice insisted by this Court. Synopsis facilitates this Court to understand the points raised and involved in the case. Importance of synopsis, therefore, is restricted and limited. There is no disclosure in the memo of petition by the present Petitioner regarding filing of Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2008 and its final disposal, dismissal on 22nd May, 2008. Incidentally, Misc. Civil Application was filed in the name of trust by Secretary Mr. Dattatraya Bhimrao Patwari, personally who is writ petitioner in this writ petition. In fact, it was for the Petitioner to disclose the filing of this Misc. Civil Application and details thereof till disposal. Statement made in synopsis that writ petition No.2181 of2008 is also rejected, leads nowhere the reader. Writ Petition runs in 198 pages with annexures, placed on record by the petitioner. Today, during the course of hearing counter is filed; the last page of which ends at 263. In this view of the matter, learned counsel Mr. R. L. Kute, for respective respondent, seeks Rs.15,000/- costs for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. To substantiate his submission, he submitted that twice Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed independent Election Officer. Today, during the course of hearing counter is filed; the last page of which ends at 263. In this view of the matter, learned counsel Mr. R. L. Kute, for respective respondent, seeks Rs.15,000/- costs for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. To substantiate his submission, he submitted that twice Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed independent Election Officer. Those orders were challenged by the present Petitioner before this Court. This submission is supported by another counsel Mr. Jadhawar for Respondent No.12. Advocate Mr. Gaikwad for Respondent No.3 seeks Rs.5,000/- towards costs. Respondent Nos.3, 5,6 all of them, are trustees. Since Respondent No.12 is ordinary member, I am not inclined to impose any costs for Respondent No.12. Mr. Mantri, in addition, to his earlier submissions, pointed out that Writ Petition Nos.8039 of 2006 with 8049 of 2006 was filed on behalf of the persons from the group of Respondent No.3. He also submits that caveat was filed by Respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.5, 6 suomotu entered appearance; they were neither caveat or nor served by this Court. Reply affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 and 6. It is the fact that they have not filed caveat and no notice was issued to them. 15. To facilitate the early hearing of the petition, by way of practice, this Court has at a time considered the issuance of notice by the Advocate for the Petitioner to the Respondents informing that they have filed the petition on behalf of particular petitioner, mentioned the petition before the High Court and circulation on a particular date is granted and the Court is likely to hear the matter on that day. By this Advocate's notice, request on and often is being made to the adversary to remain present before the Court on the date when the circulation is granted. It is true that even this practice is not traceable from the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules. 1960. Fact remains that, it is a practice followed by the counsel practising in the High Court. I am, therefore, not impressed with the submission of learned counsel Mr. Mantri that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have not been noticed, neither they have filed caveat and therefore not entitled for costs. In the case on hand, Advocate's notice was not served by learned counsel Mr. Mantri or his clients, to Respondent Nos.5 and 6. I am, therefore, not impressed with the submission of learned counsel Mr. Mantri that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have not been noticed, neither they have filed caveat and therefore not entitled for costs. In the case on hand, Advocate's notice was not served by learned counsel Mr. Mantri or his clients, to Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Considering all these facts, in my view, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed detail counter with annexures, engaged the lawyer who addressed the Court. In my view, therefore, costs to Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 needs to be awarded. So far two writ petitions allegedly filed on behalf of the persons, from the group of respondent No.3, a question of fact that which person is belonging to which group cannot be investigated and finding cannot recorded at this stage of the judgment. 1 am considering awarding costs in favour of Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 however, with lenient view. Charity Commissioner 'is at serial No.22 for whom learned A.G.P. has addressed the Court. I am inclined to award costs to Respondent No.3caveator to the tune of Rs.3,500/-, to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the tune of Rs.5,000/- each, totalling to Rs.13,500"- and I am imposing costs of Rs.13,500/- payable to the State Government since various officials from office of the Charity organisation have heard and decided Va.rl0US proceedings at the relevant time. 16. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed in limine with further direction to the Petitioner that the Petitioner shall make payment of Rs.3,500/- towards costs to Respondent No.3, Rs.5,000/- each to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Rs.13,500/- to the State Government. 17. Mr. Mantri seeks eight weeks time. I am directing the Petitioner to deposit the costs within a period of six weeks from today. After depositing the costs, the costs to be paid to respective Respondents, as I have clarified in the foregoing paragraph. 18. At this stage, Mr. Mantri had tendered an affidavit. It is marked by letter" A" for identification and taken On record. Mr. Mantri makes a statement that the copy would be given to the Advocates for the other side. Petition dismissed.