1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2008 Paraskumar s/oo Balchand Thole and another Applicant V E R S U S Sureshkumar s/o Hukumchandji Kasliwal and others Respondent Shri.Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Shri. H. A. Joshi, Advocate for the applicants Shri. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate holding for Shri. S.S. Dambe, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11 Shri.N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for respondents No. 13 to 25 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 12th July, 2010 ORAL ORDER 1. This review application is, according to Shri. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, based on; an error apparent on the face of the record, and according to him, there is one another sufficient reason for interfering in the impugned order. On the face of it, I found that the order impugned is passed after extensively hearing of the parties. My learned brother has given reasons on all points argued before him. Despite of this, Shri. Deshmukh tried to assert that the learned Judge committed error apparent on record, by ignoring the basic objection which the applicants had raised, when the matter was before the lowest Court. He pointed out that one Sureshkumar, who was not a trustee or a 2 member of the Trust etc, filed an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, to challenge the Judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. Shri. Deshmukh pointed out that Shri. Sureshkumar had no locus to make such application under Section 72. He said, neither this Court nor the learned District Judge considered this anomaly. Fortunately, this objection was raised when the Second Appeal was argued. This Court very clearly held that Section 72 of the Act does not require any qualification for making an application under Section 72. It says, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 50-A within 60 days apply to the Court to set aside such decision. 2. Shri. Deshmukh further pointed out that Shri. Sureshkumar could not have made an application inviting the Assistant Charity Commissioner’s action under Section 50-A to frame the Scheme. He pointed out that the provisions of Section 50-A require two or more persons interested in the Scheme to make such application. The submission made by Shri. Deshmukh is incorrect. The action under Section 50-A was initiated by the Assistant Charity Commissioner suomoto when he received several complaints and when he received his Inspector's report. So, there was no question of two or more persons interested in the Trust making application under Section 50- A. The review application stands rejected. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/ra/23/10