1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5950 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.S.S.Kazi, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.P.Phatake, Addl.Govt.Pleader for Respondent No.2. Mr.A.A.Mundhe, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 30.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur, framed charges against the petitioners U/s 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, purportedly on the complaint filed by the present Respondent No.3. The petitioners challenged the said order framing charges U/s 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, before the District Court purportedly U/s 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. In the said proceedings, the present Respondent No.3 filed an application to be impleaded as party. 2 The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Respondent No.3 is not a person interested within the meaning of Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, inasmuch as he is not the Trustee nor even an ordinary member of the Trust. According to the learned counsel when the Respondent No.3 is not an interested person then he can not be added as a party. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Gollaleshwar Dev and others Vs. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math and others" reported in 1986(O) BCI 102. The learned counsel further contends that even if the Court holds the petitioners guilty then at the most as per Section 77 of the BPT Act, the amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The learned counsel further contends that the District Court committed error while allowing the said application. 4. It is not in dispute that it is on the 3 complaint made by the present Respondent No.3 that the law was set in motion. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Respondent No.3, the Joint Charity Commissioner inquired into the matter, even recorded the evidence of the Respondent No.3 and thereafter framed the charges. The said charges are assailed in appeal U/s 72 of the BPT Act, before the District Court. Whether the Respondent No.3 is really an interested person can not be decided in absence of the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 will have to be heard by the District Court while concluding about the status of the Respondent No.3 i.e. whether he is interested person or not. U/s 72 of the BPT Act, even the District Court has powers to record the evidence. Section 72(2) of the BPT Act, reads as under : "72(2) The Court after taking (evidence if any,) may confirm, revoke or modify the decision or remit the amount of the surcharge and make such orders as to costs as it thinks proper in the circumstances." 4 At this stage, it would be too premature to give any finding about the status of the Respondent No.3. 5. Section 77 would not be relevant for the consideration at this stage. In case of "Gollaleshwar Dev and others Vs. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math and others" referred supra, the Apex Court was concerned with the maintainability of the suit U/s 50 of the BPT Act, vis-a-vis U/s 2(10) of the said Act, for deciding the question about interested person. Even the Respondent No.3 will have to be given an opportunity by the District Court and without impleading him as a party, the same could not have been decided. 6. The District Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. 7. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5 8. All points are kept open. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.30.08.2011. asp/office/wp5950.10