1 S.A.No. 295 & 296/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.295 OF 2009. 1. Seema Govind Katlakute, Age: 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Bhagya Nagar, Nanded. 2. Rajkumar Sopanrao Bembade, Age: 39 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Tilak Nagar, Behind Pooja Hotel, Latur. 3. Govind Babanrao Katlkute, Age: 43 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Bhagya Nagar, Nanded. 4. Pandurang Babanrao Katlakute, Age: 29 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Chata Post, Ekurga, Tq. & Dist.Latur. 5. Patel Faiyaz Wali-Ullah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Mansorro Colony, Sali Galli, Latur. 6. Gopal Dattopant Rapatwar, : 44 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Mill Road, Near Bus Stand, Nanded. ...Appellants. (Orig.Reporting Trustees. Versus 1. Shailesh Pralhadrao Akangire, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril, R/o: Renapur, At present Patel Chowk, Latur (Mali Galli). 2 S.A.No. 295 & 296/2009. 2. Dinesh Janardhan Bembade, Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Hatte Nagar, Latur. 3. Ramchandra Govind Bhandare, Agee: 46 years, Occ: Agri., R/o: Pangaon, Tq.Renapur, Dist.Latur. 4. Shobha Shamrao Akangire, Age: 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Renapur, Dist.Latur. 5. Dayarani Balaji Panhale, Age: 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Moti Nagar, Latur. ٍ ...Respondents. (Ori.Opponents.) WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.296 OF 2009. 1. Seema Govind Katlakute, Age: 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Bhagya Nagar, Nanded. 2. Rajkumar Sopanrao Bembade, Age: 39 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Tilak Nagar, Behind Pooja Hotel, Latur. 3. Govind Babanrao Katlkute, Age: 43 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Bhagya Nagar, Nanded. 4. Pandurang Babanrao Katlakute, Age: 29 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Chata Post, Ekurga, Tq. & Dist.Latur. 3 S.A.No. 295 & 296/2009. 5. Patel Faiyaz Wali-Ullah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Mansorro Colony, Sali Galli, Latur. 6. Gopal Dattopant Rapatwar, Age: 44 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Mill Road, Near Bus Stand, Nanded. ...Appellants. (Orig.Reporting Trustees. Versus 1. Shailesh Pralhadrao Akangire, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril, R/o: Renapur, At present Patel Chowk, Latur (Mali Galli). 2. Dinesh Janardhan Bembade, Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Hatte Nagar, Latur. 3. Ramchandra Govind Bhandare, Agee: 46 years, Occ: Agri., R/o: Pangaon, Tq.Renapur, Dist.Latur. 4. Shobha Shamrao Akangire, Age: 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Renapur, Dist.Latur. 5. Dayarani Balaji Panhale, Age: 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Moti Nagar, Latur. ...Respondent. Ori.Opponents.) 4 S.A.No. 295 & 296/2009. ... Mr.S.V.Warad, Advocate for the appellants in both the appeals. Mr.V.D.Gaunale, Advocate for the respondents in both the appeals. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 21stJuly, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. These Second Appeals are preferred against the Common Judgment and order passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Latur, dismissing the applications under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ( in short,”The Trust Act”) filed by the appellants. 2. The question before the Courts below was limited and that was, whether the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner, Aurangaabad was in error, when he entertained a revision under Section 70-A of the Trust Act. 3. It so happened that the appellants succeeded in getting elected for five years turn as Managing Committee of an Education Society. They filed change reports under Section 22 of the Trust Act before the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Latur. He allowed the change reports and directed to effect a change on record. The respondents did not file appeal under 5 S.A.No. 295 & 296/2009. Section 70 of the Trust Act, within limitation. The limitation then expired and after expiry of limitation, the respondents filed a revision under Section 70-A of the Trust Act before the Jt. Charity Commissioner. The learned Jt. Charity Commissioner, entertained the revision, issued notices to the appellants and then held that the orders passed by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner allowing change reports were erroneous and illegal. He directed the rehearing of the applications seeking change. As said above, even the learned Adhoc District Judge, Latur reiterated the findings of the Jt. Charity Commissioner and dismissed the applications filed by the appellants. In view of these concurrent findings of the Lower Courts, the only question of Law, Mr.Warad, learned Advocate for the appellants, raised was, whether the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner was right in entertaining the revisions. 4. Both the learned Advocates, placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in the case of “Mohamad Haidar Mujawar V/s Jamal Haidar Mujawar and others ( AIR 1969 Bombay 328).The Division Bench of this Court held that despite of Section 70 on the statute book providing right of appeal to a aggrieved party, the revisional powers under Section 70-A are equally potent. The only difference between the two Sections, is that the 6 S.A.No. 295 & 296/2009. Charity Commissioner, while entertaining the revision application under Section-70-A would have wider discretion as to whether he should entertain the application or not. In case of an appeal under Section 70 of the Trust Act, such discretion does not exist. In view of this, it is clear that the law on this point is already settled long back by this Judgment. I should not interfere in this litigation at this stage also because the appellants are not greatly prejudiced by the impugned judgment and order. They would have a fresh opportunity to prove their case. Both the appeals stand dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of these appeals, Civil Application No.4537/2009 in Second Appeal No.295/2009 and Civil Application NO.4538/2009 in Second Appeal No.296/2009, do not survive. Both the Civil Applications stand dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp