1 fa128 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.128 OF 2011 Vasant Devlal Bhavsar & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Nitin Baburao Thakare & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.D.Bhavsar the appellant no.1 appears in person Mr.P.N.Joshi for the respondent no.2 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the first appellant appearing in person. This is an appeal under sub section 4 of section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act,1950. In view of the settled law, such appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. The appeal arises out of a change report dated 3rd August 2005 filed for the purpose of entering the names of the members of the Managing Committee of a trust for the period between the year 2005 to the year 2009. 2 Enquiry was held on the basis of the change report by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. He rejected the change report. An appeal was preferred by the contesting respondents before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner allowed the appeal by setting aside the order on the change report. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner issued following directions : The Change Report Inquiry No.532/2005 is hereby accepted. The direction by the learned lower authority that the office bearers/trustees shown at Exh.1 be 2 fa128 recorded as de facto trustees in Schedule-I is hereby cancelled and instead it is directed that on accepting the change report the names of the office bearers/trustees shown at Exh.1 be recorded as de jure trustees in Schedule I. 3 Thereafter, an application under section 72(1) of the said Act was made by the appellant before the District Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 4 The first appellant appearing in person submitted that while dealing with the change report, the Authorities under the said Act had no jurisdiction to direct that the names of the contesting respondents should be shown as de jure trustees. He submitted that the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner is completely illegal and deserves to be set aside. 5 It is not in dispute that the term of the alleged Managing Committee mentioned in the change report has ended in the year 2009 and that another Managing Committee is holding the charge. 6 Thus, the issues raised in this appeal have become academic which need not be gone into in this appeal. If occasion arises, it will be open for the appellant to urge the legal contentions which are raised in this appeal in accordance with the law. 7 Subject to what is observed above, appeal is not entertained and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE