1 wp 9202.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9202 OF 2011 Vinayak Baburao Karad and others .. Petitioners Versus Chandrakant Apparao Kulkarni and others .. Respondents Shri V. V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners submitted the change report pursuant to the elections. One Chandrakant Apparao Kulkarni took objection to the said report. The Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the change report. The said Chandrakant Kulkarni filed revision challenging the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner accepting the change report. The said revision was purportedly filed U/Sec. 70(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. During the pendency of said revision the revision petitioner Chandrakant Kulkarni died. The present petitioners who were respondents therein filed application 2 wp 9202.11 seeking abatment of the said revision. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur passed an order converting the said revision as suo motu proceedings. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition. 2. Shri Bhavthankar, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the said revision was on an application by a party. The same cannot be treated as suo motu revision. On the death of the revision petitioner the revision stood abated. Sec. 70(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act contemplate two separate revisions. One on application and another suo motu revision. The revision preferred on an application cannot be treated as suo motu revision. In view of that the learned counsel submits that the order passed is erroneous. 3. Sec. 70(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act lays down that the Charity Commissioner may either suo motu or on an application call for and examine the record and proceedings of such case before the Deputy Charity Commissioner or the Assistant Charity Commissioner and may either annul, reference, modify or confirm the said findings. In the present case, the revision was preferred by Chandrakant Kulkarni. On his death the Charity Commission has passed an order that the 3 wp 9202.11 same is converted as suo motu proceedings. It cannot be disputed that the Charity Commissioner has got powers to suo motu call for record and proceedings of the subordinate officer and decide the same. The only caution laid down is that the Charity Commissioner shall not pass any order without hearing and giving opportunity of hearing to the party affected. When there is nothing in the statute to limit the powers of the Charity Commissioner from taking up suo motu proceedings, then simply because earlier proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application, the Charity Commissioner cannot be prevented from taking suo muto cognizance. The arguments of the learned counsel that the number would be the same cannot be accepted, as the same would be too technical and not inconsonance with the cause of substantial justice. There is no embargo on the Charity Commissioner to take suo motu proceedings and vide the impugned order the same has been done. 4. In view of the above no error is committed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in passing the impugned order. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11