-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.5944 of 2007 1. Imanual Education Society Sangli and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. Shri Ramchandra Shivram Bhandare and others ..Respondents Smt.Sharvari Shailendra i/b Shri P.S.Dani for petitioners. Shri T.S.Ingale for respondent nos.2 to 5 and 7. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 31st January, 2008 31st January, 2008 31st January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge II, Sangli dated 15th March, 2007 dismissing the petitioners’ appeal being Civil Misc.Application No.97 of 2006. The appeal was directed against the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 29th March, 2006 in Trust Appeal No.58 of 2005. 2. It is not disputed before me that there is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 upon which the Administrator was appointed for some time. He had filed the change report on the basis of the meeting held -2- on 13th November, 2005. According to the Administrator, this meeting was held to elect the new Managing Committee/Body. The meeting was convened in pursuance of the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli in Misc.Civil Application (Trust) No.243 of 2003. It appears that the change report was allowed by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Sangli. The order of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Sangli on 19th November, 2005 allowing the Change Report was challenged before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur by the contesting respondents before me. He had set aside the order of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Asstt. Charity Commissioner for fresh enquiry. It was this order which was impugned in the appeal under sec.72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. This application/appeal is dismissed by the impugned order. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me through the impugned order and contended that once it is undisputed that the Administrator had power to convene the meeting so also file the Change Report, and that the persons who have been elected at the meeting -3- having taken charge, there was no occasion to interfere with the functioning of the Trust under the new Managing Body, more so when there were not complaints against them. She contended that the order has been challenged and set aside only for the alleged non compliance with the procedure. She submits that these procedural aspects could never be termed as mandatory so as to vitiate the ultimate order. The change report was rightly accepted and that decision should not have been interfered with. 4. With her able assistance I have perused the petition and annexures thereto. The Joint Charity Commissioner, whose order was impugned before the learned District Judge has observed that the matter was uncontested before the Asstt. Charity Commissioner. The record indicates that the appointments were not made as per the scheme. No notice has been issued to the Administrator. It is observed that the proper procedure has not been followed while appointing the new body. It is that conclusion which ultimately led to an order of remand. That remand order prejudices neither party. It is well settled that when the change report is submitted and enquiry is contemplated that -4- enquiry must be regarding the legality and validity of the change report. If that enquiry is to be meaningful and complete, the entire material must be placed and opportunity be given to the parties to prove that while effecting the change the scheme was adhered to and all necessary rules and regulations have been complied with. If that all has been denied, then, the Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge were right in concluding that for such an enquiry to be complete and meaningful an order of remand was necessitated. 5. To my mind, there is no error apparent or perversity disclosed in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)