1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 847 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2363 OF 2009 Shri Maruti M. Bhivarkar and others ..Appellants versus Krishna Anant Nandle & Others ..Respondents Mr.Vinod Jadhav for the appellants Mr. Talkute for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.A.R.Kapadnis for the respondent No.6 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. Respondent Nos.5, 8 and 9 are reported to be dead as seen in the appeal memo. The respondent NO.1 is duly served. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 made an application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Satara, Region Satara under Section 50A(3) of the Bombay 2 Public Trust Act, 1950 being Application NO.384 of 2000 for modification of the scheme which was framed by the Charity Commissioner. That application was heard and granted by the said Assistant Charity Commissioner, Satara, Region Satara (hereinafter referred to as the learned Asst. Charity Commissioner) by Order dated 19.8.2000. Against that order, Misc. Civil (Trust) Application No.196 of 2000 was filed by Krishnakant Nandle and others, said application was heard and decided by the learned Principal District Judge, Satara and by Judgment and Order dated 16.5.2009 the Misc. Civil Application filed before the said learned trial Judge was allowed. However, the persons who wanted to have the scheme modified were ordered to file fresh application. 3. Against this Order dated 16.5.2009 appellants have filed the present first appeal. A perusal of the order dated 16.5.2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge goes to show that she accepted the stand that the respondents before the 3 Asst. Charity Commissioner were not given hearing and to that extent principles of natural justice were not followed. She however came to the conclusion that there is no power of remand conferred upon District Judge under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and that is how she directed that the fresh application should be filed. 4. I have heard learned Advocates on both the sides. In my view, the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge dated 16.5.2009 is required to be looked into from this angle, namely if the learned Judge came to the conclusion that principles of natural justice were not followed, it was always open for her to remand the matter to the concerned authority, who had not followed the principles of natural justice and direct that authority to pass an appropriate order giving opportunity to all concerned. The learned Principal District Judge, in my view, erroneously came to the conclusion that Section 72 of the 4 Bombay Public Trust Act does not empower her to remand the matter. In my view, it is well settled principles that if a appellate authority comes to the conclusion that principle of natural justice are not followed, then the said appellate authority has power to remand the matter to the original authority which has decided the matter and see that the principles of natural justice are followed. In my view it was not proper for the learned District Judge to accept the stand of the respondent and direct the original applicants to file fresh application. In my view, this is a fit case in which the Order dated 16.5.2009 can be set aside and the matter can be remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for hearing and disposal of the application No.384 of 2000 on merits after providing opportunity to all concerned. 5. It is seen that by the application in question the scheme was sought to be amended. It is to be noted that when the scheme is to be taken up for 5 amendment and if a new scheme is to come into force it may have long lasting effects which may affect certain persons who may be termed as beneficiaries or can be termed as persons having active interest in the affairs of the trust. In such a case, it will be proper that the concerned authority hears such persons. Before this Court rival contentions were placed as regards what shall happen to the administration of the scheme and what should be the arrangement till the Assistant Charity Commissioner disposes of application No.384/2000. It is to be noted that the status quo which was prevailing on the date when order was passed by learned District Judge is operating. Hence after having considered the respective submissions, I am of the view that it will be proper to order that the status quo as of today to continue till 31.7.2009 and the party who wants to have a specific order from the court so as to modify the order of status quo shall make an application to the said Assistant Charity Commissioner, and that the said Assistant Charity 6 Commissioner shall decide that application i.e. application for interim arrangement till the main application is decided. In my view this arrangement will meet the ends of justice. 6. If any beneficiary or claimant is interested in appearing before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner he should be permitted to intervene if application is made. 7. The learned Charity Commissioner shall affix on his notice board a notice informing the members of the public that the hearing of the main application No.384 of 2000 will be taken on a particular date which can be fixed by him and if any person wants to file an application he should file the application before that date. 8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, this first appeal can be disposed of by passing following order. 7 ORDER The Order dated 16.5.2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Satara, in Misc. Civil (Trust) Application No.196/2000 is set aside. The order dated 19.8.2000, passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Satara Region, in Scheme Application No.384 of 2000 is set aside. The original application No.384 of 2000 filed under Section 50A(3) of the Bombay Public Trust Act is now remanded to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Satara Region, Satara. Said Assistant Charity Commissioner shall hear and dispose of the said application No.384 of 2000 as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31.12.2009, ofcourse by giving necessary opportunity to all the parties concerned. The Status quo as of today as regards the implementation continue till 31.7.2009. 8 If any party wants to have specific Orders from the Assistant Charity Commissiner, so as to modify the order of status quo he shall make the application before the Assistant Charity Commissiner and the said application shall be decided as and by way of interim application by hearing concerned parties and interim arrangement would be arrived at by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Assistant Charity Commissioner shall fix the date for hearing of the application No.384 of 2000 as per this Order. He shall accordingly put up the notice on his notice board. If a party claiming itself to be a beneficiary or having an interest in trust activities wants to make an application for joining itself to the said application No.384 of 2000, the said party is free to do so and the Assistant Charity Commissioner shall hear and decide the said application and if such a party is joined as party in the main application No.384 of 2000 offer hearing to such a party. It is noticed that some persons are reported to be dead. Naturally there is no question 9 of bringing their heirs on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. No views are expressed on the merits of the application which is ordered to be decided by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. Civil Application No.2363 of 2009 is disposed of with no order as to costs in view of disposal of the first appeal. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)