1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 970 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 970 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 970 OF 2008 Shankarrao Daji Satpute ... Appellants Vs. Anil Hussain Satpute & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. V.A.Shastry, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. P.R.Arjunwadkar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Shivraj Patil, Advocate, i/b. Mr. S.D.Patil,for Respondent No.2. Ms. S.P.Manchekar, AGP, for respondent No.4. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 30th July, 2008. DATE: 30th July, 2008. DATE: 30th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by rejection of the Change Report submitted on 4.12.1998 in respect of the two trustees, viz. Mr. Ramchandra Laxman Nirgudkar and Mr. Jayant Shivram Shinde and the appointment of respondent Nos. 1 and 6 as the trustees by the Assistant Charity 2 Commissioner, the appellants filed Misc. Application No.68 of 2000 under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act before the District Court. That Application was also rejected and the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner was upheld. This Appeal is filed by the applicants challenging the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. It is now settled position of law that even though in such matters, the appeal is registered as First Appeal, it is as good as a second Appeal and it may be admitted only if substantial question of law is involved in the matter. 3. After lengthy arguments and discussion at the Bar, Mr. Shastry, the learned Counsel for the applicants conceded that as far as respondent NO.6 is concerned, his appointment was proposed by the existing trustees under the Scheme and he was also appointed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner independently of that proposal. Therefore, the applicants do not press the challenge against his appointment. 4. Mr. Shastry however contended that as far as the applicant No.1 - Anil Hussain Satpute is concerned, he had a criminal record and in 1999, he had filed three Criminal Revision Applications for quashing the charges in three criminal cases against him. It is contended 3 that when the Assistant Charity Commissioner made the appointments, the appellants had no opportunity to bring the antecedents of respondent No.1 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The record reveals that this point was pressed before the District Court. However, this contention was rejected by the District Court on the ground that merely because certain criminal cases were filed against him, he could not be disqualified. According to the District Court, he could be disqualified only if the charges were proved and he was found guilty. In my considered opinion, it is not the question of removal of respondent No.1 from the post of trustee because of the disqualification incurred by him due to the criminal cases. The question is whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner could have found him fit for the post of trustee if these antecedents would have been brought to his notice. In my considered opinion, though no substantial question of law is involved in the present Appeal, the Appeal may be disposed of with the following directions :- The Appeal stands dismissed. However, the Appellants shall be at liberty to move the Assistant Charity Commissioner and bring 4 to his notice the criminal antecedents of respondent No.1 and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, after hearing all the concerned parties, may reconsider the appointment of respondent No.1 as a trustee. He shall not be influenced by any observations made by the District Court or this Court while reconsidering the matter. 5. As the Second Appeal itself is dismissed with certain directions, the C.A. Nos. 2491 of 2008 and 5155 of 2008 do not survive and stand disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)