:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.359 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.359 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.359 OF 2008 Mr.Cyrus G. Mazkoori ...Appellant. v. 1.The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of India, New Delhi & Ors ...Respondents. Mr.Cyrus G. Mazkoori Appellant present in person. Mr.Nikhil Sakhardande with Mehul Shah, Pratik Pawar i/by D.Liladhar & Co. , advs. for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3. Mr.S.N.Gawade, AGP for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 6th August, 2008. DATE: 6th August, 2008. DATE: 6th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the appellant, who is party in person and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, who is an advocate and who claims to be aggrieved by framing of a scheme by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in respect of the trust running New Era High School at Panchgani in Enquiry Application No.33 of 2006. By the order dated 22-11-2006, that scheme was framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 50A (1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 on an application filed by Mr.R.Ganesa Murthi and Mrs.Zia Modi, both of whom were the trustees. The school was established by the National Spiritual Assembly of :2: Baha’is of India. The applicants before the Assistant Charity Commissioner contended that for the smooth and proper administration of the school, it was necessary to frame scheme under Section 50A (1). They also contended that because the school was established by the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India, the trust will have to function subject to the general control of the said National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India, i.e., the respondent no.1 before this Court. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner noted that no-one had raised any objection to the said application and thus, the enquiry had become uncontested. After looking to all the facts and circumstances, the Assistant Charity Commissioner passed the order and framed a scheme in respect of New Era High School Committee. That scheme is shown at annexure A at page 31 of this appeal memo. The present appellant, who claims to be a member of Bahai community filed an application no.141 of 2007 before the District Court, Satara under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 challenging the framing of that scheme. After hearing the parties, the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Satara dismissed that application holding that there is no fault in the scheme and that the present appellant was not even a member of the trust nor even a trustee and, therefore, he has no concern with the running of the trust. The learned District Judge also noted that the appellant has failed to show as to how he has got interest in the said trust :3: and as to how any injustice has been caused to him because of the said order. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of that application, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal. 3. I have carefully gone through the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. On perusal of the scheme, I find that Clause 6 of the scheme provides for the general control of the respondent no.1, i.e., the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India in the affairs of New Era High School and the trust, as per the scheme, has to function under the general control of the said National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India. The scheme has taken care of the purposes and the objects of the trust, proper management of the school and the implementation of different activities of the school. The scheme also defines powers and duties of the Chairman, Secretary and the trust as a whole. Even though I repeatedly asked the appellant, who is himself an advocate, to point out by which particular clause of the scheme, he is aggrieved or to point out how any part of the scheme is against the basic principles of the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India or against the basis objects of the trust constituted in 1958 for the purpose of running New Era High School but he could not point out anything. 4. It appears that the appellant had joined New Era :4: High School and Junior College, Panchgani as an employee for a period of 2 years from 7-11-1988. However, before completion of probation, his services were terminated from 27-10-1990 and thereafter, he left Panchgani and he was employed in Bhutan. The present appellant was admittedly not a party to the proceeding before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. He claims to be interested party within the meaning of Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trust Act since he is a member of the respondent no.1, i.e., the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 pointed out that the present appellant was removed from the membership of Bahai community on 31st May, 2007 and that order was challenged by the appellant before the District Court and the District Court had given stay to his expulsion. However, against the order of the District Court, the Writ Petition No.2660 of 2008 was preferred by the respondent no.1 and in that writ petition, this Court had granted stay to the order passed by the District Court on 24th July, 2008. According to him, in view of this the present appellant is not even a member of the Baha’is community. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the appellant is member of the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India, merely because he is a member, he can not be a aggrieved party unless he can point out that the scheme in some or the other respect, is wrong or not in the interest of the :5: management of the school itself, members of the sect or the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of India. 5. The appellant contended that if the Assistant Charity Commissioner found that it was necessary to frame a scheme for the proper management or administration of the trust, it is implied that for the last about 50 years, trust was not being properly managed and secondly, he contended that all the trustees are in collusion with each other and, therefore, the application was not contested. The appellant contended that the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner was ex-parte because in that application, no contesting party was shown. There is no force in his contention because the application was filed by two of the trustees for framing the scheme for better management of the school. It was not a contentious litigation and therefore, there was no opponent in the matter. Section 50A (1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act provides that where the Charity Commissioner has reason to believe that, in the interest of the proper management or administration of the public trust, a scheme should be settled for it, or where two or more persons having interest in a public trust make an application to him in writing in the prescribed manner that, in the interest of the proper management or :6: administration of the public trust, a scheme should be settled for it, the Charity Commission may, if, after giving the trustees of such trust due opportunity to be heard, he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, frame a scheme for the management or administration of such public trust. From this it is clear that either the charity commissioner may suo-motu or on application of two or more persons having interest in public trust frame a scheme for the management or administration of such trust. Before doing so, the charity commissioner is required to give due opportunity of being heard to the trustees of the trust. It is not required that the public in general should be invited for the hearing. According to the appellant, the trustees were not given due opportunity before the scheme was framed. Even if it is so, the trustees could make a grievance about the same but none of the trustees has challenged that order on any ground including the ground that they were not given opportunity of being heard before framing of the scheme. The appellant was not a trustee and, therefore, he was not entitled to be heard before framing of the scheme. 6. Section 50A only requires that the Charity Commissioner has to satisfy that the scheme is in the interest of the proper management or administration of the trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner gave a finding that it is necessary to frame a scheme for the :7: proper management or administration of the trust. As pointed out earlier, the appellant could not point out any fault in the said scheme. His application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was dismissed by the District Court. It is now well settled that the appeal before the High Court, being a second appeal can be admitted only if there is substantial question of law. In the present case, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the matter. 7. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)