1 FA 672.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2010 Mohan Kamlakar Jahagirdar .... APPELLANT VERSUS Vivek Bhaskar Jahagirdar & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. R.P. Dhase, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07/03/2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The present respondents had filed an application under Section 50 – A of the Bombay Public Trust Act for framing of scheme. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Beed allowed the said application and framed the scheme in respect of the Trust Shree Vyankatesh Sansthan situated at Ravivar Peth, Ambejogai. The present appellant challenged the said order before the District Court by filing Misc. application. The District Court 2 FA 672.2010 dismissed Appeal and confirmed the finding of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The appellant has assailed the said Judgment before this Court. 3. Mr. R.P.Dhase, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trust was registered under the Hyderabad Endowment Act. The present appellant is the hereditary trustee . There was no public interest involved. As such, the Assistant Charity Commissioner could not have framed the scheme. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vinayaka Dev Idagunji and others V/s Shivaram and others reported in 2005 ( 5 ) ALL MR (S.C.) 861. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that by framing the scheme, the rights of the petitioner are affected and the appellant’s rights are curtailed. The respondents have no right and interest in the Trust. There was no occasion for the respondents to approach the Assistant Charity Commissioner. It was erroneous on the part of the Assistant Charity Commissioner to observe that there was mis-management in the Trust. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the Judgment. 3 FA 672.2010 6. It has been observed by the authorities below that there is no record to show that the Trust was registered under the Hyderabad Endowment Act nor any scheme was framed. There were no rules and regulations to manage the affairs of the Trust. It has been observed by the Courts that the evidence of the present respondent has gone unchallenged. Even in cross examination, his statement was not shattered and that each and every member from Jahagirdar family had right to manage the Trust. 7. The Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Vinayak Dev referred supra would be of no assistance to the appellant as it is on altogether different premise. 8. It is also observed that after 1985-86, no accounts have been submitted and there was mis-management in the Trust. 9. In the light of the above conspectus of facts, the Judgments impugned do not suffer from error. No Substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] 4 FA 672.2010 knp/FA 672.2010