1 SA 260.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.B.Bhapkar,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.R.Chandak, Advocate for Resp.no. 1 & 2. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present appellant had filed Appeal before the learned District Judge, Parbhani being aggrieved by the Scheme being framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 50­ A of the Bombay Public Trust Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ]. The learned District Judge dismissed the Appeal. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr. S.B.Bhapkar, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the appellant is an interested person and no notice of the framing of scheme was issued to the appellant nor the Assistant Charity Commissioner had issued the 2 SA 260.2010 public notice thereby vitiating the whole proceedings. The learned counsel contends that even it has not been considered that the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who had submitted the Scheme, are not interested persons and they did not have any locus standi to present the Scheme. The learned counsel further contends that the learned District Judge did not apply his mind. The learned District Judge even did not consider that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had mechanically accepted the Scheme and had not arrived at any conclusion. The learned counsel further contends that the learned District Judge has failed to exercise powers vested in it as per Section 72 of the said Act. As such, the learned counsel contends that the Judgment delivered by the learned District Judge is erroneous. No opportunity was given to the appellant. 3. Per contra, Mr.R.R.Chandak, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not necessary to issue notice to the appellant at the time of framing of Scheme. The appellant is not an interested person. On the contrary, the appellant has an interest adverse to the interest of the Trust in as much as the appellant even tried to purchase the property of said Deosthan. In such circumstances, the appellant who has adverse 3 SA 260.2010 interest, can not be construed as an aggrieved person. According to the learned counsel, the learned District judge has properly considered the said aspect. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments. 5. The phraseology of Section 50­ A of the said Act does not mandate issuance of notice to the interested person at the time of framing of Scheme. The said provision requires the notice to be issued to the Trustees and to no other person. In such circumstances, the appellant can not make any grievance that no notice was issued. Further, the said Section requires objective satisfaction of the Assistant Charity Commissioner while sanctioning the Scheme. From the perusal of the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, it is manifest that the authority has observed that though the said Trust is in existence for a considerable length of time, still there are no rules or bye­laws framed of the said Trust. In absence of any bye­laws or constitution of the Trust, it would not be possible to properly administer the said Trust. After arriving at the objective satisfaction, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has proceeded to frame the scheme which deals 4 SA 260.2010 with the qualification of the trustees, the appointment of new trustees, the managing committee, the rights and duties of the office bearers, operation of the bank accounts, etc. After satisfying itself about all these aspects, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has sanctioned the said Scheme. The appellant could not have claimed any right of being heard at the time of framing of the Scheme. Whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were interested persons or not, would not be the issue in view of the fact that under Section 50­A of the said Act, the Assistant Charity Commissioner even has power to sou motu frame the scheme for the proper management or administration of the public trust. On the application given by respondent nos. 1 and 2 the Assistant Charity Commissioner, thought it fit that the scheme is necessary for the proper administration and management of the Trust. More over, it is nowhere stated as to which clauses of the Scheme are not beneficial for the proper administration of the Trust. 6. In view of the above, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 5 SA 260.2010 7. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 260.2010