1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 757 OF 2009 Vijay s/o Gulabrao Patil and another Appellants Versus Vilas s/o Hukumchand Gujar and others Respondents Smt.Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for appellants. Shri V.D.Hon, advocate for Respondents No.1, 3 to 9, 11, 16, 21, 22, 25, 26 to 34, 36 to 39. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 0 2 nd February, 2010. P.C.: 1 Appellants herein initiated proceedings under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as `said Act’) in respect of amendment to the constitution of Trust. 2 The matter was taken up for consideration by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 22 of the said Act. After considering rival contentions, Assistant Charity Commissioner was pleased to accept the Change Report. The Assistant Charity Commissioner directed recording of amendment to the constitution of Trust and further directed to suitably amend Schedule-I. 3 Appeal was taken up against the order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner to the Joint Charity Commissioner, which was allowed 2 by the appellate authority in view of the judgment and order passed on 04.07.2007. Further challenge raised to the order before District Court has been turned down in Misc. Civil Application No.50/2007 by District Judge-2, Dhule, in view of the order passed on 03.05.2008. 4 I have perused the orders passed by Trust authorities as well as by the District Court. In these proceedings, the Trust authorities as well as District Judge, while dealing with the application, have failed to consider scope of inquiry under Section 22 of the said Act. Section 22 of the Act deals with the change occurred in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under Section 17. The issue taken up before the authorities does not relate to the entries recorded in the Register kept under Section 17 of the Act. The challenge raised in respect of amendment to the constitution of the Trust has to be dealt with by the appropriate authority under Section 50A of the Act. The exercise of jurisdiction in the instant matter by the Assistant Charity Commissioner was, in fact, unwarranted and beyond the scope of inquiry under Section 22 of the Act. 5 The proceedings initiated before Assistant Charity Commissioner were itself misconceived and as such, orders passed by the Trust authorities as well as District Court shall have to be held to be improper. The parties, if they have any grievance in respect of amendment recorded to the constitution of Trust, they may have to approach appropriate forum prescribed under relevant provisions of the Statute. As stated earlier, proceedings taken up before the Assistant Charity Commissioner were misconceived and ought not to have been entertained and as such, original order as well as appellate orders also are rendered illegal and improper. Parties have liberty to approach appropriate forum provided under the 3 statute and if such proceedings are taken up, all the questions, those would be agitated, will have to be considered by the appropriate forum. Any observations made while dealing with the matter in the instant proceedings shall not be an impediment in the way of trust authorities while deciding the issue in respect of validity or otherwise of amendment effected to the constitution of Trust. 6 In view of the reasons recorded above, no interference is called for in this Second Appeal. Second Appeal stands dismissed with liberty as stated above. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa75709