JUDGMENT 1. On 25/11/2022 we made the following order. "1. These two Petitions relate to elections to the Abhinav Shetkari Shikshan Mandal in Bhayandar (East) District Thane. This is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950. It has two branches. It runs schools and colleges with an enrolment of 8000 students. In Civil Writ Petition No. 14537 of 2022, the 1st Respondent is the Trust. The 2nd Respondent is the Deputy Charity Commissioner, and the 3rd Respondent is the Election Officer. The 4th Respondent is the State of Maharashtra. 2. There is a controversy about who can represent the Trust and even today two Advocates have both claimed this right. We have no hesitation in denying both of them this privilege. We will decide at a later stage who should represent the Trust. That is not our concern at this stage at all. 3. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are represented and waive service. In Writ Petition No. 13665 of 2022, the 1st Respondent is the State of Maharashtra, the 2nd Respondent is the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Thane, the 3rd Respondent is the Election Officer, and the 4th Respondent is one Mohan Madhukar Patil represented by Dr Saraf. He claims to be a member of the Trust and it is said that it is at his instance that a long-delayed election programme was initiated. The 5th Respondent to Writ Petition No. 13665 of 2022 is the Trust and, similarly, while it is joined, it will presently remain without active representation. Mohan Patil is to be joined as the 5th Respondent to Civil Writ Petition No. 14537 of 2022. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith without need of reverification. 4. The principal complaint here is that the election, already delayed, has been announced without a proper and thorough verification of the voters lists. There is at least one intervention application. In that intervention application, the applicants represented by Mr Thorat say, for example, that they although they are members, their names are not included in the voters list. Mr Shah for the Petitioner in Amol Kashinath Patil's Petition says that there are other problems as well. The voters list includes members who have passed away. They are still shown as eligible and on the membership rolls. Mr Shah for the Petitioner in Amol Kashinath Patil's Petition says that there are other problems as well. The voters list includes members who have passed away. They are still shown as eligible and on the membership rolls. More importantly, he asserts that names of some 99 persons have been entered on the voters list as members although these persons have never properly gained membership. 5. Dr Saraf on behalf of Mohan Madhukar Patil has filed an Affidavit in the Amol Patil Petition. The State Government has also filed an Affidavit. The paging errors are to be corrected. Mohan Madhukar's Patil Affidavit will have its paging commence after the end of the State Government Affidavit. 6. Dr Saraf submits that there is material on record to show that the Election Officer went through some exercise and this it is submitted is a verification of the voters list. The document shown to us at page 603 is a possibly inaccurate translation of the original document that starts at page 596, Exhibit "W" to the Amol Patil Petition. Prima facie this indicates that it is Mohan Patil who submitted a list of members including those who are registered from 2011 to 2014. Some registration fee receipts were also shown. Mohan Patil seems to have got his list notarised and there is mention of a comparison of the draft membership list with the original membership record book. The tabulation from page 598 has mention of a publication of a draft electoral member list, prescribing a date for filing objections and then a date for release of the final list (14/11/2022). Then there follows the programme for the conduct of the elections themselves. 7. We are not satisfied prima facie with the manner in which the draft list was addressed. Mr Shah for Amol Patil maintains that the Election Officer has apparently held that Amol Patil and other Petitioners did not submit documents establishing that certain other memberships were bogus or false. We do not see how there can be any such demand or expectation. 8. This is no way to proceed. The method of acquiring membership is usually established as per the sanctioned scheme. Even on this, in the present case, there is a controversy before us with different people saying that copies of the scheme are incomplete or are not the true copies. 8. This is no way to proceed. The method of acquiring membership is usually established as per the sanctioned scheme. Even on this, in the present case, there is a controversy before us with different people saying that copies of the scheme are incomplete or are not the true copies. The scheme itself is with the Charity Commissioner and it is this scheme that will govern. We would ordinarily expect the scheme to have some basic minimum criteria for membership and basic procedure for admission to membership. If none is explicitly provided, then past records will undoubtedly establish how memberships were normally sought and accepted. As an example, and we are not setting out a requirement, in a given case there could be a procedure for submission of a form with signatures, payment or stipulated fees, a receipt being issued and then the acceptance by the management presently in charge of the trust. There may be variations on this but while verifying the list, the Election Officer must apply his mind to whether persons who claim to be entitled to have their names on the members list and voters list acquired membership in consonance with a procedure that is either prescribed in the scheme or appears to be a consistent past practice. If membership records show a name for many years, this may of course be accepted. If some persons have passed away, some form of documentation showing the death must be asked for (a death certificate, an obituary announcement etc). But if new names are to be entered on the voters' list, then their membership must be verified. A mere entry in a recent membership register cannot suffice when there is a dispute about the register itself. We clarify that it is not the function of the electoral authority to decide questions of eligibility to or disqualification from membership. 9. We direct the Election Officer to re-publish the voters list and to do so by 2/12/2022. That publication must also have at its end a reference to this order with, if possible, a link to it, so that all are aware why such an exercise is being undertaken. The notice must specifically call for objections by no later than by 16/12/2022. Thereafter, a final list is to be prepared and this list is also to be published. 10. The notice must specifically call for objections by no later than by 16/12/2022. Thereafter, a final list is to be prepared and this list is also to be published. 10. When we say published, we mean only on the notice board of the Election Officer. We are not requiring the entire list to be published in newspapers. However, from the funds available with the trust a public notice is required that the draft list has been published and setting out the date for suggestions and objections. The final list is to be published and put up on the notice board of the Election Officer by 6/1/2023. It is not to be acted upon and no election schedule is to be announced until 13/1/2023 when these Petitions will be listed high on board for directions. The reason we are taking this step is because we anticipate that there may be some level of objections that need to be addressed before the final list can be taken to an election programme. We have not disposed of the Petitions for this very reason. We do not want to delay the process and we do not want repeated or multiple petitions. 11. List the matters high on board on 13/1/2023. 12. The Interim Application by Mr Thorat is made absolute. The Respondents are allowed to intervene. 13. The Election Officer is present in Court. 14. All Affidavits are to be filed in the Registry with correct pagination. 15. In case of any difficulty, liberty to the Election Officer and the State Government to apply." 2. Mr Desai informed us that the procedure set out in that order, including in paragraph 10, was followed and the election officer has filed an Affidavit at page 640. This appears to have been wrongly filed in another matter. This is a compliance Affidavit of Kishore Balkrushna Chavan affirmed on 6/1/2023. He is the inspector in the office of the Charity Commissioner. He references the 25/11/2022 order at the head of the Affidavit. Then in paragraph 2, Mr Chavan says that on 30/11/2022 he issued a letter to the Abhinav Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, the Petitioners and the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2022. He sought a list of valid members, proof of membership, the original membership register and other documents. The notice was duly delivered. He sought a list of valid members, proof of membership, the original membership register and other documents. The notice was duly delivered. The 4th Respondent Trust submitted the original membership register, receipt books and the original receipt showing deposit of membership fees and photocopies. The Petitioners submitted other documents. Mr Chavan also received the record from the office of the Deputy Charity Commissioner regarding the Miscellaneous Application. He then examined the documents and he then personally visited and took inspection of some records seized by the Economic Offence Wing. 3. We come now to paragraph 5 of the Affidavit and this is the paragraph to which the Petitioners take exception. Mr Chavan says in his affidavit that the Petitioners failed to submit any document to substantiate or support their objection of a record of 100 members as being forged or fabricated. The submission before us is that the Petitioners 'cannot prove' this and that it was for Mr Chavan or somebody else to prove that, in respect of those 100 members, the records were genuine. The submission by the Petitioners is only to be stated to be rejected. If a person makes an allegation of forgery or fabrication, it is for that person to be able to establish it. Indeed paragraph 5 itself has a sufficient answer because Mr Chavan says that he verified with the record Sec. of his office the accounts submitted with the office by the Trust and found that the Trust account submissions for the years 2012-2013 and the audited accounts did not support the case of the Petitioners. There were cash books, bank books and lender book accounts which recorded receipt of membership fees of these very 100 persons whose membership is said to be suspect of fraudulent or forged or fabricated. 4. Then in paragraph 6, Mr Chavan records that he went through the documents provided by both sides and the record of which he took inspection from the EOW as also the record from the office of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Thane. In regard to the inclusion of 489 members, it was found that none of the parties had any objections, but the objections were only in respect of the 100 members and a further 49 said to be falsely claiming membership. 5. Mr Chavan prepared three lists. List 1 had the names of 489 members. In regard to the inclusion of 489 members, it was found that none of the parties had any objections, but the objections were only in respect of the 100 members and a further 49 said to be falsely claiming membership. 5. Mr Chavan prepared three lists. List 1 had the names of 489 members. List 2 had the list of those 100 members we have mentioned above. List 3 was the list of persons who claimed membership but allegedly had no documentary proof to establish membership. 6. Mr Chavan then published the three lists in draft on the notice board of the office of the Public Trust Registration along with remarks. He called for objections for all three lists. For List 3, he called for documentary proof of membership for the names on that list. There were 71 objections received against the draft list. A further list of the objectors is annexed to the Affidavit in Reply. 7. Mr Chavan went further and recorded -- or had recorded -- oral statements of the objectors. He went through all the objections. He decided each one of them and communicated them to all the objectors by email. He then published the final list, a copy of which is at Annexure VIII. 8. He thus says that there is sufficient compliance. 9. What is now sought by the Petitioners is a merit-based review of the substance of the orders passed by Mr Chavan. What they require now is a full-fledged investigation into the affairs of the Trust rather than judicial review of the administrative action, i.e., the decision-making process. 10. It seems to us abundantly clear that the Petitioners are not in a position to establish the correctness of any of their allegations. 11. The Petitioners believe that their only role is to raise some objections and then pass on the burden of proof to somebody else to establish the incorrectness of their allegations. Repeatedly they ask "how can we prove it?", meaning their own allegations. On any conception of law, that is incorrect. As a starting principle and unless the law otherwise requires, he who alleges must prove. There is no point in simply invoking Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, as if this stands in an isolated silo, completely without contextual or statutory connection to other provisions of the Evidence Act. 12. Faced with this, the submission is in three parts. As a starting principle and unless the law otherwise requires, he who alleges must prove. There is no point in simply invoking Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act, as if this stands in an isolated silo, completely without contextual or statutory connection to other provisions of the Evidence Act. 12. Faced with this, the submission is in three parts. (a) First, that we must now examine, despite Mr Chavan's detailed affidavit and the process he followed, whether he 'considered' every single 'submission' made by the Petitioners. The submission seems to be that every single line of every one of the Petitioners' objections should have been noted and dealt with by Mr Chavan. The submission is misconceived. If Mr Chavan dealt sufficiently with the substance of the allegations by the Petitioners, that is enough. (b) Second, we are asked to enter into a controversy of records having been fabricated or forged. For self- evident reasons, we cannot. (c) Third, we are told that at least for some members, no proof in the form of resolutions or receipts was ever produced. Again, and despite this clever colouring, this is nothing but a merit-based review of a decision- making process. It is no answer at all to say now that every single one of the Petitioners' objections was not accepted. Mr Chavan's Affidavit says that he considered it. His decision on that consideration is not something that can be entertained in a Writ Court. That would be purely a disputed question of fact. As for example, whether there is or is not a receipt showing payment of membership fees, or a resolution, etc are all matters of evidence. What the Petitioners seem to have contended is that there is no such receipt or that there is no such resolution. On the other hand, Mr Chavan has maintained that the other records are sufficient to warrant and justify his preparation of a final list. 13. It is precisely to ensue a transparent decision-making process that we instituted the procedure by our order of 25/11/2022 and which, as we have seen, Mr Chavan followed. That procedure was detailed -- and perhaps Mr Chavan went much further than we contemplated, but that is to his credit --and we had ensured the widest possible publicity. Yet the Petitioners are where they were: simply making allegations. 14. That procedure was detailed -- and perhaps Mr Chavan went much further than we contemplated, but that is to his credit --and we had ensured the widest possible publicity. Yet the Petitioners are where they were: simply making allegations. 14. At this stage we are unable to see how or in what manner Mr Chavan can be said to have fallen short of what we required by our order of 25/11/2022. If the Petitioners have any grievances on merits, they are free to agitate those in appropriate proceedings in jurisdictionally competent forum. There is no possibility of us entering into this arena of disputed questions of facts in these Writ Petitions. 15. The Petitioners now say that they wish to challenge the order passed by Mr Chavan and have raised objections to it. They want to amend the Petitions. They seek further interim relief. They say there are important questions of law. 16. So be it. 17. Rule. 18. On all Interim Applications, Rule on interim relief. 19. Rule in both cases is returnable in the normal course. 20. We make it clear that the election programme is not interrupted and will now proceed. 21. There is an application to continue interim relief at the instance of Petitioners, those who cannot substantiate a thing that they say. At least, we are told, no 'policy decisions' should be taken. At whose instance? And why? This is a charitable educational trust. It runs several schools and colleges with some 8000 students. Interim relief of the kind the Petitioners seek would run indefinitely and would conceivably adversely impact these students, apart from teachers and non-teaching staff. What exactly a 'policy decision' entails in this context is, of course, conveniently unspecified. Conceivably, it may include everything from investments to fees and salaries. All that we hear is that unless these Petitioners get every single thing they want, the entire functioning of the Trust must be crippled -- and it does not matter who is the collateral damage in the bargain. On no principle of equity will we consider this; apart from the fact that the Petitioners are not, of course, willing to be put to any form of terms for any loss or damage that might ensue from their application for 'stay' or 'no policy decision', if granted. On no principle of equity will we consider this; apart from the fact that the Petitioners are not, of course, willing to be put to any form of terms for any loss or damage that might ensue from their application for 'stay' or 'no policy decision', if granted. At the cost of repetition, to allay all concerns, we extended ourselves and our writ jurisdiction and instituted a second-level transparent process and procedure. That was followed, and there is a compliance affidavit. It is too late now to raise further objections, all circling back to the same situation of an inability to substantiate a case brought to court. 22. We decline continue ad-interim relief. The previous order of stay stands vacated. We have made Rule returnable even on interim relief. That must suffice.