1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 555 of 2010 Narayan s/o Laxmanrao Ghatbandhe ...Versus... Bhika s/o Bakaramji Mohture & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. H.D. Dangre Advocate for appellant. Mr. Anil Thakre Advocate for Respondent 1. Mr. Prashant Gode Advocate for Respondent 2. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 08.08.2011. Heard. 2. In support of second appeal, Mr.Dangre learned counsel for the appellant, made following submissions - (i) Reading of the judgment and order recorded by learned District Judge shows that he has furnished reasons only in para 8 of his judgment and has not considered the contentions which were raised including that of delay that was caused in filing review application before the Joint Charity Commissioner. (ii) Judgment and order recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner is vitiated because he entertained the 2 revision after 21 years. Though there is no limitation provided for entertaining the revision, the Joint Charity Commissioner should not have entertained the revision after so many years and, therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. (iii) Alternatively, if at all this Court is inclined to confirm the remand order the appellant should be allowed to contest the proceedings after remand on the question of delay and laches before Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respective respondents vehemently opposed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The learned counsel submitted that the order made by the Joint Charity Commissioner is a remand order and remand order may not be interfered with in second appeal. The submission that the appellant should be allowed to raise objection about delay and laches will have to be rejected because the Joint Charity Commissioner found that the order made by the Deputy Charity Commissioner accepting the Change Report by putting rubber stamp was per se illegal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. It is not in dispute that the Change Report in question related to the resignation of one Bhika Bakaram Mohature, who 3 is said to have resigned on 15.3.1986. Learned counsel for both the parties have not been able to produce before me the said resignation and the only material available on record is that of proceedings of acceptance of the resignation of Bhika, which I have seen. It is not in dispute that the Change Report No. 761/1986 was accepted by the Deputy Charity Commissioner by putting a rubber stamp and obviously without holding any enquiry. Not only that, the person who is said to have resigned, namely Bhika, was not summoned by the Deputy Charity Commissioner to verify whether he had resigned from the post. The Deputy Charity Commissioner simply put rubber stamp accepting the Change Report without following the procedure and in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Thus, concurring with the finding recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner, I find that such an order made by the Deputy Charity Commissioner accepting the Change Report in a mechanical manner is no order in the eye of law. In my opinion, such an order even if not put to challenge even after 21 years by the person aggrieved, namely Bhika who is said to have resigned and who was admittedly not noticed nor was he at all aware when the Change Report was accepted, the question of delay and laches would not arise. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to agree with Mr.Dangre that the impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner should 4 be set aside or that liberty to raise objection about delay and laches should be reserved. The provision of Section 70-A of Bombay Public Trust Act does not provide for any limitation and this Court has taken a view in 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 94 – Virbala K. Kewalram v. Ramchand Lalchand that there is no limitation for entertaining the revision and deciding the same. The reasons are obvious that the Joint Charity Commissioner should be able to supervise and keep a watch on the affairs of the public trusts. There is no reason for me to differ with the said view taken by this Court. In that view of the matter, no fault could be found with the Joint Charity Commissioner in entertaining the revision after 21 years in the above peculiar fact situation. 5. The submission that the District Judge has recorded a cryptic order and therefore the proceedings should be sent back to the District Judge is attractive. But that by itself should not be a ground to set aside the order made by the District Judge in the proceedings under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, since I have considered all the facts and the legal position arising in the instant case. Thus, in order to avoid multiplication of litigation, I find that the remand order made by the Joint Charity Commissioner does not deserve any interference. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in the present second appeal. Second 5 Appeal No. 555 of 2010 is dismissed. Judge /TA/