1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.23 OF 2002 Mahadeo Basvantrao Patil & ors ..Appellants V/s. Sangappa Rayappa Karajangi & ors ..Respondents Mr.A.G.Joshi, advocate, for the appellants None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellants and the advocate for respondent No.1. The advocate for the appellants states that the appellant No.6 has died on 4th January, 2008. However, considering nature of the controversy involved in the Appeal, there cannot be any abatement. 2. An application was made U/s.50-A(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the Assistant 2 Charity Commissioner for framing a scheme of a registered public trust by the name 'Bharat Shikshan Sanstha', Utagi, Taluka Jat, District Sangli. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the said application and framed a scheme for better and proper management of the trust. By the scheme he appointed the first board of trustees of the trust. An application U/s.72 read with sub- Section 4 of Section 50-A(1) of the said Act was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the District Court for challenging the Order of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 3. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 8th October, 2001 the learned Additional District Judge, Sangli allowed the application only to the limited extent of setting aside the appointment of the first board of the trustees. However, he confirmed the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner to the extent to which the scheme was framed. An order of remand was passed on the 3 ground that there were Criminal cases pending against the seven out of nine persons appointed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner as the trustees of the trust. The Additional District Judge, Sangli directed the Assistant Charity Commissioner to hold an enquiry and make a fresh appointment of the trustees of the trust. 4. The first submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is that the Criminal proceedings which are referred to in the order of the District Court have already ended in acquittal. Second submission is that while exercising powers U/s.72 of the said Act of 1950 the District Court could not have passed an order of remand. The said power was not vesting in the District Court. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is well settled that though this appeal is numbered as a First Appeal, the same will be governed by the constraints Section 100 of the Code 4 of Civil Procedure, 1908. In so far as powers of the Court U/s.72 of the said Act are concerned the legal position is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Goverdhan Pandit Versus The Charity Commissioner of State of Gujarat(1987(2) Bom.C.R.559). The Apex Court held that the proceedings U/s.72 of the said Act are in the nature of an appeal and the District Court exercises Appellate Jurisdiction. In exercise of the said Jurisdiction, the Appellate Court can always pass an order of remand. 6. The learned Additional District Court found that there were Criminal cases pending against the seven persons who were members of the board of trustees. Before appointing any person as a trustee of a Public Trust his fitness has to be ascertained and only after the Charity Commissioner is satisfied that the person concerned is fit to discharge duties as a trustee of a public trust, he 5 or she can be appointed as a trustee. Therefore, there was justification in passing a limited order of remand with a direction to the Assistant Charity Commissioner to hold an enquiry regarding appointment of the members of the first board of trustees and thereafter, to appoint the trustees. If at all there is an order of acquittal, the nature of the order will have to be considered by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. 7. There is no error in the impugned Judgment and Order. No substantial question of law arises. The First Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.5184 of 2001 does not survive and same is accordingly disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)