1 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 66 OF 1988 Renukadas Jairam Bhopi Died through L.Rs. : 1. Jaykumar S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. Agril. & President of Renuka Devi, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 2. Advocate Vijaykumar S/o Ambadasrao Bhopi Age : Major., Occ. Legal Practitioner/Pujari. 3. Raghoba S/o Ambadas Bhopi Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Agril./Pujari. 4. Sambhaji S/o Shivaji Bhopi Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. Agril./Pujari. 5. Bhanudas S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. Agril./Pujari. R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 6. Babarao S/o Vithal Charode Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril./Pujari. R/o : Gokul, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 7. Namde S/o Govind Patil Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril./Pujari. R/o : Ner, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 8. Bhargavram S/o Kashiba Shinde Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril./Pujari. 2 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment R/o : Hadsani, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. ..... APPELLANTS V E R S U S 1. Ramkrishna Balirambhat Bhopi Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 2. Bhargavram S/o Balirambhat Bhopi Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 3. Narayan S/o Sambshivrao Phandade Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 4. Vilas S/o Baliram Jagat Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 5. Dadaji Bhaurao Jagat Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 6. Annaji Rambhau Deo Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 7. Nana Vishnu Deo Pujari Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 3 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment 8. Vinayak Ambadas Joshi Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 9. Baliram Narayan Jagat Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 10. Devidas Renukadas Rithe Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 11. Waman Shankar Joshi Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 12. Renukadas Krishanarao Kannav Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 13. Rambhau Baliram Kannav Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 14. Balabhau Nanji Pathare Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 15. Gajanan Manohar Pund Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 16. Kalidasrao Krishanarao Kannav 4 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment Age : Major, Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahoor, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 17. The Tahsildar, Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. V.J. Dixit, Sr. Counsel for Resp. Nos. 2,3,4,5,9 and 12. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2003 1. Vijay S/o Ambadas Bhopi Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Advocate R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 2. Sambhaji S/o Shivaji Bhopi Age : 28 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 3. Jaykumar S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agri., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4. Raghoba S/o Ambadas Bhopi Age : 34 Yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agri., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5. Nanarao S/o Shamrao Patil ( Deceased ). 6. Babarao S/o Vithal Charode 5 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Gokul Gondegaon, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 7. Namdeo S/o Govindrao Patil Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Ner, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 8. Bhargavram S/o Kashiba Shinde Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Hadsani, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 9. Shri Renuka Devi Sansthan Mahur, through its President Shri. Jaikumar S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agril. R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. ..... APPELLANTS V E R S U S 1. Ramkrishna Balirambhat Bhopi Age : 85 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 2. Narayan S/o Sambshivrao Phandade Age : 70 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 3. Sunil S/o Annaji Deo Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 6 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment 4. Dadaji Bhaurao Jagat Age : 75 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5. Devidas Renukadas Rithe Age : 75 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 6. Kalidas S/o Krishanarao Kannav Age : 85 Yrs., Occ. Nil., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 7. Vilas S/o Baliram Jagat Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agri., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 8. Nandkumar S/o Bapurao Santhan Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Journalist R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 9. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 to 7. Mr. S.Y.Mahajan, Advocate for Resp. No. 8. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2004 1. Ramkrishna S/o Balirambhat Bhopi Died on 12/7/2002 and 7 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment L.Rs. not liable to be brought on record. 2. Narayan S/o Sambashiv Phandade Died – Through L.Rs. : 2-A. Vinayak S/o Narayanrao Phandade Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 2-B. Mohan S/o Narayanrao Phandade Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 3. Vilas S/o Baliram Jagat Age : 52 Yrs., Occ. Pujari. 4. Dadaji S/o Bhaurao Jagat Died – through L.Rs. : 4-A. Ashok S/o Dadaji Jagat Age : 56 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4-B. Balaji S/o Dadaji Jagat Age : 51 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4-C. Deepak S/o Dadaji Jagat Age : 48 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5. Vinayak S/o Ambadas Joshi Age : 49 Yrs., Occ. Pujari. 6. Baliram S/o Narayan Jagat Age : 90 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, Since deceased and 8 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment L.Rs. are not liable to be brought on record. 7. Devidas S/o Renukadas Rithe Died – through L.Rs. : 7-A. Suryakant S/o Devidas Rithe Age : 47 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 7-B. Chandrakant S/o Devidas Rithe Age : 44 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 8. Kalidasrao S/o Krishanarao Kannav Age : 89 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, Since deceased and L.Rs. are not liable to be brought on record. ..... APPELLANTS V E R S U S 1. Jaykumar S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : 44 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 2. Vijaykumar S/o Ambadas Bhopi Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 3. Raghoba S/o Sambhaji Bhopi Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4. Sambhaji S/o Shivaji Bhopi 9 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5. Bhavanidas S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : 20 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 6. Nana S/o Shamrao Patil Deceased- L.Rs. are not available to be brought on record. 7. Babarao S/o Vithal Charode Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Gokul, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. Deceased - L.Rs. are not available to be brought on record. 8. Namdeo S/o Govind Patil Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : At Ner, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 9. Bhargavram S/o Kashiba Shinde Age : 62 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Hadsani, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 10. Assistant Charity Commissioner Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 11. The State of Maharashtra. 12. Bhargavram S/o Baliram Bhopi Died – through L.Rs. : 12-A. Prashant S/o Bhargavram Bhopi 10 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.J.Dixit, Sr.Counsel for the appellants. Mr. S.S.Choudhari, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 5,8 & 9. Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 4 & 7. Mr. V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 12. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2004 1. Ramkrishna S/o Balirambhat Bhopi Died on 12/7/2002 and L.Rs. not liable to be brought on record. 2. Narayan S/o Sambashiv Phandade Died – Through L.Rs. : 2-A. Vinayak S/o Narayanrao Phandade Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 2-B. Mohan S/o Narayanrao Phandade Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 3. Sunil S/o Annaji Deo Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Pujari. 4. Dadaji S/o Bhaurao Jagat Died – through L.Rs. : 4-A. Ashok S/o Dadaji Jagat Age : 56 Yrs., Occ. Service, 11 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4-B. Balaji S/o Dadaji Jagat Age : 51 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4-C. Deepak S/o Dadaji Jagat Age : 48 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5. Devidas S/o Renukadas Rithe Died – Through L.Rs. : 5-A. Suryakant S/o Devidas Rithe Age : 47 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5-B. Chandrakant S/o Devidas Rithe Age : 44 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 6. Kalidasrao S/o Krishanarao Kannav Age : 89 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, Since deceased and L.Rs. are not liable to be brought on record. 7. Vilas S/o Baliram Jagat Age : 52 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. ..... APPELLANTS V E R S U S 12 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment 1. Vijaykumar S/o Ambadas Bhopi Age : 38 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 2. Sambhaji S/o Shivaji Bhopi Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 3. Jaykumar S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4. Raghoba S/o Sambhaji Bhopi Age : 34 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5. Babarao S/o Vithal Charode Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Gokul, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 6. Namdev S/o Govind Patil Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : At Ner, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 7. Bhargavram S/o Kashiba Shinde Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Hadsani, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 8. Renukadevi Sansthan, Mahur Through Defacto Trustee Bhawanidas S/o Renukadas Bhopi. .... RESPONDENTS 13 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment Mr. V.J.Dixit, Sr.Counsel for the appellants. Mr. S.S.Choudhari, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 6,7,8 . Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 2,4 & 5. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6108 OF 2004 1. Bhawanidas S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : about 24 yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agril R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 2. Jaikumar S/o Renukadas Bhopi Age : about 45 yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agril R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 3. Vijaykumar S/o Ambadas Bhopi Age : about 40 yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agril R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4. Raghoba S/o Ambadas Bhopi Age : about 36 yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agril R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5. Sambhaji S/o Shivaji Bhopi Age : about 32 yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agril R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 6. Rajkumar S/o Ambadas Bhopi Age : about 38 yrs., Occ. Pujari & Agril R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. ..... PETITIONERS 14 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment V E R S U S 1. Ashish S/o Gunwantrao Joshi Age : about 30 yrs., Occ. Agril R/o : Ghatatewadi, Bhadkas Chowk, Mata Galli Road, Mahal, Nagpur – 2. 2. Gunwant S/o Trimbak Joshi Age : about 30 yrs., Occ. Agril R/o : Ghatatewadi, Bhadkas Chowk, Mata Galli Road, Mahal, Nagpur – 2. 3. Bhargavram S/o Baliram Bhopi Age : 24 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 4. Chandrakant S/o Baburao Bhopi Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Pujari, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 5. Vinayak S/o Narayanrao Phandade Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 6. Kishor S/o Vasantrao Jagat Age : about 46 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 7. Durgadas S/o Devidas Bhopi Age : 27 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 15 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment 8. Chandrakant S/o Devidas Rithe Age : 26 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 9. Sanjay S/o Rambhau Kannav Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 10. Deepak S/o Devidasrao Kannav Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 11. Balaji S/o Dadaji Jagat Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 12. Vijay S/o Dattatraya Aamle Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agril, R/o : Mahur, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded. 13. The Deputy Charity Commissioner Yeotmal, Dist. Yeotmal. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Vivek Dhage , Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.L.Kulkarni, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V.J.Dixit, Sr.Counsel, for Resp. Nos. 3 to 12. Mr. V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 12. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23/12/2010 16 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment COMMON JUDGMENT : 1. All these proceedings depict the sorry state of affairs in the management and the functioning of the Sansthan. Several proceedings between the parties in respect of the famous temple Shri. Renuka Devi Sansthan, Mahur, Tq. Kinwat, District : Nanded [ For short, ‘ said Sansthan ’ ] are pending. 2. The said Sansthan is an ancient temple. The Goddess in the said Sansthan is worshiped by large number of devotees. The agricultural lands from Yewatmal and Akola districts are endowed in favour of said Sansthan. 3. The Respondents in Writ Petition No. 6108 of 2004 claim that a Public Trust in respect of the properties and temple in favour of said Sansthan has been registered in Yewatmal district. There are rival claims regarding the said registration. It is claimed by petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6108 of 2004 that only agricultural lands are registered as public trust and not the temple, whereas the respondents in Writ Petition No. 6108 of 2004 claim that along with the agricultural lands, the temple is also registered. However, the same is not the subject matter of the dispute in any of these proceedings. 4. In the year 1982, two ( 2 ) separate applications by two ( 2 ) rival groups i.e. one by Renukadas and another by Ramkrishna bearing 17 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment Enquiry Nos. 387 of 1982 and 388 of 1982 respectively were filed for registration of the said Sansthan as a public trust. Initially, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded vide Order dated 02/04/1983 directed the registration of the said Sansthan as a public trust under Section 20 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Vide the said Order, it was held that there were three ( 3 ) trustees namely – (1) Renukadas Baliram Bhopi (2) Narayan Sambashiv Fandade and (3) Bhargavram Baliram Bhopi and six ( 6 ) members in the managing committee. Separate Appeals were filed against the said Order of the registration of the said Trust as a public trust before the Jt. Charity Commissioner, Nanded. The Appeals were partly allowed and the Order dated 02/04/1983 directing the registration of the Trust was set aside. The said applications i.e. Enquiry Nos. 387 of 1982 and 388 of 1982 are still pending. FIRST APPEAL NO. 66 OF 1988 : 5. In the year 1984, one of the groups i.e. of Ramkrishna Baliram Bhopi and others filed an application bearing Enquiry No. 1 of 1984 for framing of scheme under Section 50 – A ( 1 ) of the Bombay Public Trust Act [ For short, ‘ B.P.T. Act ’ ]. In the said enquiry, an application was filed under Section 41-A of the B.P.T. Act and further application under Section 47 of the B.P.T. Act was also filed alleging that Renukadas has indulged in mis-management. Several allegations were levelled against him. The Jt. Charity Commissioner, Nanded appointed an Inspector to make an enquiry on various aspects. After receipt of the report, the Jt. Charity 18 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment Commissioner, Aurangabad allowed the application ( Exh. 4 ) and appointed interim trustees under section 47 of the B.P.T. Act for management and administration of the Trust. Six ( 6 ) persons were appointed. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsels at bar that out of six ( 6 ) persons appointed as interim trustees, five ( 5 ) are already dead and Renukadas, against whom allegations were made, is also dead. Subsequently, in the year 1997, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded had approved the scheme submitted by Renukadas Bhopi and others. The said Order was challenged before the District Court, Nanded, who allowed the Appeal, set aside the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded, but by way of an interim arrangement, directed the scheme so framed to be continued till the proceedings under Section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act are decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded. As such, though de-jure the scheme is not in existence, but de-facto by way of an interim arrangement, the District Court has directed that the said scheme to be in force till the proceedings under Section 50 – A of the B.P.T. Act are decided. The said Order is not challenged by any party and has become final. In view of the fact that five ( 5 ) trustees who were appointed as interim trustees are already dead, so also Renukadas is dead and that subsequently by way of an interim arrangement, de-facto the scheme is in force. The said Order dated 10/3/1987 assailed in First Appeal No. 66 of 1988 has become redundant 19 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment and does not survive. As such, First Appeal No. 66 of 1988 and the reliefs claimed therein have become redundant. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 66 of 1988 is disposed of. SECOND APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2004 : 7. This Second Appeal is directed against the Order of the District Court dated 10/10/2001 dismissing the application filed by the present appellants and confirming the Order dated 18/12/2000 thereby allowing the application of the respondents for modification of the scheme. 8. It is not disputed that the validity of the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the year 1997 was subject matter of challenge before the District Court and the same was pending. During the pendency of the said proceedings before the District Court, the present respondents moved an application for modification of the scheme, thereby proposing to modify clauses 4 and 17. The said application was filed on 07/12/2000 and on 18/12/2000, the Assistant Charity Commissioner , Parbhani allowed the said application for modification. The District Court vide Order dated 10/10/2001 had set aside the scheme framed in the year 1997, at the same time, confirmed the order modifying the said scheme. 9. Mr. V.J.Dixit, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the said modification is without any application of mind. Within ten ( 10 ) days of filing an application, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner modified 20 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment the scheme. Now, when the original scheme itself is set aside, the modification would not survive. The learned Sr. Counsel further contended that Bhavanidas was inducted as a trustee by the said direction. No opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants. The learned Sr. Counsel further contended that though by an application modification was sought of clause 4 and 17, still if we read the modified scheme as approved, even clauses 8 and 9 have been modified, which was never sought nor any reasons are given for the modification. Bhavanidas is shown as a trustee in the said modified scheme. It is the back door entry of Bhavanidas. 10. Mr. Dhage, learned counsel for the respondents contended that though the scheme was set aside by the District Court, but by way of in interim arrangement, the said scheme was continued till the proceedings for framing of scheme are decided. As there was no stay to the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner framing the scheme, the authority had all the power to entertain the application for modification. Pendency of an Appeal does not operate as a stay for the said purpose. Mr. Dhage, learned counsel relied on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gurudas V/s Scheduled Tribe reported in 2005 (3) Mh. L.J. - 603. According to the learned counsel, as the scheme is de-facto in force, the order rejecting the challenge to the modification has to be read along with the same. There is no bar for modification. According to the learned counsel, the excess modification is not material and the provisions of Section 50-A do not contemplate, hearing to be given to the appellants. It only contemplates hearing to the trustees and as appellants are not the 21 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment trustees, there was no necessity to issue notice to them. 11. Perusal of the proceedings for modification of the scheme shows that within ten ( 10 ) days the Assistant Charity Commissioner has allowed the application for modification. Even his order does not show any application of mind. It is observed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner that the scheme requires modification in clause 4 and 17. But, when the modified scheme is seen, even modification was made in clause 8 and 9. No reasons are given. Even for accepting the modification in clause 4 and 17, no reasons are given. The same seems to have been decided in haste. When the scheme was modified, Renukadas was dead, still in clause 7 of the modified scheme, his name appears as main Pujari. Even the powers of the Secretary are enhanced in the modified scheme. There was no such application made. All these aspects go to show that the order of modification was passed without application of mind. The validity of the original scheme was itself pending adjudication before the District Court. No emergent or expedient circumstances were brought on record to suggest that the modification was necessary during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Court. It is a trite law that pendency of Appeal does not ipso-facto operate as stay. But, when there was no emergent situation, in those circumstances, propriety demands that the Assistant Charity Commissioner should not have committed the haste. On the contrary, within ten ( 10 ) days he sanctioned the modified scheme, that too without application of mind in as much as what was not proposed in the application for modification has been shown in the modified scheme and no reasons are 22 F.A.66....88 - Common Judgment given for the same. For all these reasons, I set aside the Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner modifying the scheme, so also, the Order of the District Court confirming the same and I relegate the parties to the authority. The authority shall reconsider the application for modification of the scheme on its own merits and then shall decide the same. The Second Appeal No. 383 of 2004 is accordingly disposed of. SECOND APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2003 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2004 : 12. An application under Section 41-D of the B.P.T. Act was moved by Ramkrishna Bhopi and others i.e. respondents in Second Appeal No. 127 of 2003 before the Jt. Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad registered as application No. 6 of 2000 for framing of charges against the appellants of Second Appeal No. 127 of 2003. Thereafter, an application was moved for suspension of the appellants of Second Appeal No. 127 of 2003 and for appointing a fit person. The Jt. Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad vide Order dated 01/07/2008 suspended the appellants. He also passed an Order below Exh. 48 appointing respondent