suresh 917-PIL-51.2013.doc assistance of Mr. Kudle, who maintains that there is something fishy or bogus about the appointments, the process preceding the same and the orders of approval. However, we are unable to agree with Mr. Kudle for the simple reason that the specific statements made in the affidavits in reply filed by the Education Officer are not denied and dealt with by the petitioner at all. In this case, it is clear that if the petitioner has a dispute with the Trustees or the office bearers of the Trust and proceedings in that behalf are pending with the Competent Authorities under the Trusts Act, then the remedy of the petitioner was to proceed with those matters and seek such orders therein as are permissible in law. The PIL could not have been filed to question the entire process and to which, upto a substantial stage, the petitioner was himself a party. If the petitioner has not been allowed to function as a Trustee and has been illegally removed, then the change report filed subsequently by the Trustee can be questioned by the petitioner. In fact it appears that the change report proceedings are pending. If the change in the Management of the Trust is not approved by the Charity Commissioner, then all the consequences may follow. However, the Education Officer says that, while the petitioner makes a complaint and also seeks to procure the affidavit of the said Vajir Shaikh as an afterthought, still he maintains complete silence with regard to the Consent Terms and the compromise arrived at between him and the 2nd respondent.
