RAJKUMAR PUNDLIKRAO ZAPE Vs. SHANTARAM AMRUTRAO WAGHMARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard finally with consent of parties.

(2.) THIS second appeal is at the instance of objectors before assistant Charity Commissioner.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows -There is a trust known as Bhagaji Maharaj Sansthan at ruikhed, Tq. Akola, Distt. Akola. On 5/7/2001, an application under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was submitted by second Appeal no. 508 of 2005. Shantaram and others requesting the Assistant Charity commissioner to effect the change. It was mentioned in the said application that a meeting of trustees was held on 11/11/1981 in which one Nilkanth Zape, Bhiku Gawande and Shantaram waghmare were elected as trustees. A request was also made to delete the name of one Champabai, who had expired on 14/9/1996. Along with this application, another application was made. In the said application, it was stated that applicant shantaram and others did not know that a change is required to be reported to the Charity Commissioner and therefore, they could not make the application within time. A prayer was therefore made in the said application to condone the delay in submitting the application for change. Further, yet another application was made by those applicants ? Shantaram and others ? for permission to lead an evidence for condonation of delay. The learned Assistant Charity commissioner did not allow Shantaram and others to lead an evidence. He found that delay was inordinate and therefore, he rejected the delay condonation application. As a consequence of this, he also rejected the change report. Applicant Shantaram and second Appeal no. 508 of 2005. others, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Joint Charity commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner condoned the delay in submitting the application and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Charity Commissioner and directed him to proceed with the enquiry into the change on merits. Being aggrieved by that order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Additional district Judge, dealing with the said appeal, dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by that order of dismissal of the appeal/application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust act, this second appeal is preferred.