Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLAATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2191 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO 1303 OF 2008 Suresh Nivrutti Desai : Appellant. Versus Prataprao D Chavan – Chairman Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha : Respondent. Mr. A M Kulkarni for the Appellant. Mr. S V Pitre for the Respondent. CORAM : C L PANGARKAR, J DATED : 13th JANUARY 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge whereby he confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The proceedings under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act were initiated upon an application made by the present Respondent for amalgamation of the trusts. An inquiry was held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the matter. During the course of that inquiry, the present Appellant appeared before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and raised several objections. His main objection was that, all societies which are sought to be amalgamated were not properly managed and the society has wrongly terminated the services of the Appellant. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner considered the submissions and rejected the objections raised by the present Appellant and directed the trusts to be amalgamated. The said finding was challenged by the Appellant before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge who heard the matter concurred with the findings recorded by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and dismissed the Application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that was raised was that the amalgamation that has been ordered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner itself was not proper since, according to him, the application as made by the Respondents itself, goes to show that the trust was already amalgamated. He submits that there is, therefore, something fishy and that should have been inquired into by the Courts below. He also submits that the Letter Head upon which the application for amalgamation was made does not go to show that it is a registered trust. 4. This submission does not appear to me to be not correct. The said Trust i.e. Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha seems to be registered as a trust bearing No.NSE­17. Further the Assistant Charity Commissioner has considered that for the proper and efficient management of both the trusts, it is necessary that they should be amalgamated. In any case there was an application for amalgamation and the Assistant Charity Commissioner has found that it is necessary to so amalgamate the said trusts. It is not shown to me why such amalgamation was not proper and there is an ulterior motive in amalgamating the trusts. In view of this, I do not find that the finding as recorded by the Court suffers from any infirmity. 5. The next ground is that this appeal cannot be entertained because the Appellant has no locus to challenge the amalgamation. He was an ex­teacher working with the said society. He cannot be said to be a trustee or a person interested in the trust. He does not fit within the definition of Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. In the circumstances I find that the Appellant has no locus to challenge the order as passed by the authorities below. 6. In the circumstances, the Appeal preferred herein is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine. 7. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.1303 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. [C.L.PANGARKAR,J]