1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.650 OF 2007 Shankarrao Babanna Dhuli & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Vasant Tipanna Patil & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.651 OF 2007 Sudhir Subhas Sinhasane & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Mahadev Gopinath Hingmire & Ors... Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. Umesh Mankapure for petitioners Mr.Uday Warunjikar for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Ms.P.S.Cardoso, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 16th January 2008 P.C. . These petitions are directed against the orders which have been passed by the Ad-hoc Dist.Judge Sangli on 18th November 2006 in two 2 applications being Misc.Application No.45 of 2005 and Misc.Application No.153 of 2005. The Ad-hoc Dist.Judge has allowed both the applications by a common order and quashed and set aside the order dated 18th December 2004 in Enquiry Application No.760 of 2002. 2. In the enquiry Application No.760 of 2002, the Ad-hoc Dist.Judge was concerned with a request of the applicants therein to the effect that the scheme of Trust in question was approved under section 50 A of the Bombay Public Trust Act on 30th September 1974. The objects of the Trust are very limited. Considering the changed circumstances, scheme is not useful to the Public at large. Further, there is no provision for Executive council or for any minimum and maximum members constituting the same. For all these reasons, the scheme requires modification and the jurisdiction of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was invoked so as to modify the 3 scheme by resorting to powers under section 50A(3) of the said Act. 3. Insofar as the second application is concerned, the present petitioner had filed a report on 1st November 2002 proposing deletion of the names of certain opponents before Ad-hoc Dist.Judge contending that they are no more so also deleting names of opponent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 as they had tendered their resignations. 4. Reliance was placed before the Ad-hoc Dist.Judge so also before Assistant Charity Commissioner upon a resolution passed in a meeting held on 26th July 2004. 5. The application proceeds on the basis that the matter was thereafter compromised by the parties and not only being satisfied about the requirement of change or modification to the scheme but also about legality and validity of 4 the compromise that the order was passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 6. However, the Ad-hoc Dist.Judge has not accepted these submissions but at the instance of five applicants before him, quashed and set aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. 7. The Ad-hoc Dist.Judge has taken cognisance of the Miscellaneous applications and affidavits filed on 30th August 2004 by five persons whose names are appearing in para 15 of the impugned order. They had stated that consent letters bear their signatures but they have not made any affidavits on 30th August 2004. They had filed their affidavits before Ad-hoc Dist.Judge and contended that their false and fabricated affidavits were produced before the Assistant Charity Commissioner during the course of enquiry. The learned Judge was of the opinion 5 that these facts are not controverted by the present petitioners. In such circumstances, according to him, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has not satisfied himself with regard to the legality of the compromise and, therefore, there is necessity of fresh enquiry. 8. After this matter was argued for some time, both sides agree that there should be a fresh enquiry. However, the fresh enquiry would be restricted to the legality of the compromise which has been recorded by the Charity Commissioner in his order dated 18th December 2004. The enquiry would be restricted only to the persons who had moved Miscellaneous Applications and who had filed affidavits along with Exh.22 before the ad-hoc Dist.Judge. With regard to complaint of these persons, that a fraud has been practiced on them and that they had never authorised anybody to enter into consent terms, nor have they signed any 6 affidavits and handed them over to anybody, the Ad-hoc Dist.Judge or such other Judge to whom the matter may be assigned by the Dist.Judge, shall conduct an enquiry and render his findings within a period of three months from the date of parties appearing before him. Needless to state that the Dist.Judge or the concerned Judge to whom the matter is assigned shall not be obliged to hold any enquiry in case, the persons who have filed Miscellaneous Application as also who have filed their affidavits, do not appear before the Court on the date and time fixed by the Court. Parties to cooperate in expeditious conclusion of the enquiry by not seeking unnecessary adjournments. Further, depending upon the outcome of the enquiry, the scheme in question would stand modified in accordance with the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. In other words, if the compromise is found to be lawful, then, the order dated 18th December 2004 stands confirmed and all consequences in pursuance 7 thereof in law shall follow. If the compromise is not found to be lawful, then, the Asstt.Charity Commissioner shall re-hear the applications for modification of the scheme so also consider the change report filed before him and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. The order under challenge stands substituted with the above directions and it is directed that instead of Assistant Charity Commissioner holding enquiry, the Dist.Judge or the concerned Judge to whom the matter may be assigned by the Dist.Judge Sangli shall conduct the enquiry. Petition disposed of. All contentions are expressly kept open. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)