SADASHIVASWAMY Vs. BASAVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the common Judgment dt. 20-12-1977 passed by the P11. District Judge, Belgaum in Misc. Case Nos. 6 and 7 of 1976 on his file, allowing the applications and setting aside the order of Charity Commissioner dt. 7-11-1974 and the order of the Asst. Charity Commissioner dt. 29-4-1968, in Application 49 of 1968 on his file and directing the matter to be remitted to the Asst. Charity Commissioner, Belgaum for de novo inquiry under S. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.

(2.) The Asst. Charity Commissioner started suo motu inquiry with regard to Hiremath in Belgaum, and came to the conclusion that it was a private Trust. Aggrieved by the said decision the concerned parties took up the matter in revision to the Charity Commissioner under S. 70 (a) and the Charity Commissioner on hearing the parties confirmed the order of the Asst. Charity Commissioner holding that the Trust in question was a private Trust. Aggrieved by the said decision, the concerned parties made two applications, namely, 6 and 7 of 1976 before the Prl. District Judge, Belgaum, under S. 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and the learned District Judge on hearing the arguments and examining the records held that the inquiry conducted by the Asst. Charity Commissioner was vitiated and in that view, as stated above, he set aside the orders of the Charity Commissioner and the Asst. Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Asst. Charity Commissioner, Belgaum for de novo inquiry under S. 19 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present appeals are instituted before this Court.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants strenuously urged before us that the learned District Judge was not justified in holding that there was no delay in instituting the applications under S. 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He further submitted that the applications made before the Charity Commissioner also were hopelessly delayed and as such he could not entertain it as revision petitions before him. Hence, he submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge should be set aside by allowing the appeals.