1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2809 OF 2005. Akhil Bhartiya Sri Gurudeo Seva Mandal .... PETITIONER. ....Versus.... Suresh Shalikram Rajgure .... RESPONDENT. Mr. V.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. A.S. Kilor, learned Counsel for respondent. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED : JANUARY 25, 2008. 1.Heard Mr. V.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. A.S. Kilor, learned Counsel for respondent. 2.The petition is directed against the order passed on 11.3.2005 by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati below Exh.20 in C.A. Inquiry No. 76/04. The application below Exh. 20 was taken out by the respondent under the provisions of Section 73-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to allow him to be joined 2 as an objector. This application was strongly opposed by the petitioner. However, the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner allowed the respondent's aforesaid application relying upon Full Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Housing Board .vs. Nagjibhai (1985) Gujarat Law Report 1190 in which it is held that the term “interested person” is to be liberally construed. The Deputy Charity Commissioner also relied upon the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act in which the respondent's application was allowed partly. 3. Be that as it may, the Division Bench of this High Court had an occasion to interpret Section 2(10) which defines the phrase “persons having interest” in the case of Digambar Pralhad Jot and others .vs. Satyanarayan Biharilal Zunzunwala and others reported in AIR 1978 BOMBAY 196. The Division Bench in para 7 observed as follows:- “So far as the first contention raised by Shri Badiye namely, that the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 had no locus standi to file an 3 application under section 51 of the Act, is concerned, in our opinion, on the basis of the material placed before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, he was right in coming to the conclusion that the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 were the persons having interest in the Trust. S. 2(10) of the Act defines the phrase “Person having interest” in the following terms : “2 (10) “Person having interest” includes-- (a) ......... (b) ......... (c) .......... (d) in the case of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, any member of such society, and (e) in the case of any other public trust, any trustee or beneficiary.” Initially in this definition clause in place of the word 'includes' the word 'means' was used by the Legislature. The word 'includes' was substituted by Bombay Act No. 28 of 1953. It is well settled that the word 'includes' in the interpretation clause is 4 intended to be enumerative and not exhaustive. It has an extending force and it does not limit the meaning of the term to the substance of the definition. When it is intended to exhaust the signification of the words interpreted, the word 'means' is used – See Chandrabhagabai Ashtekar v. State of Bombay (1958 Nag LJ 172).” 4. Plain reading of the above observation shows that the definition of phrase “person having interest” is inclusive definition and not exhaustive. In that view of the matter, I do not see any error, committed by the learned Charity Commissioner while passing impugned order, which enables me to exercise my jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of any substance. Same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE. J.