R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

2. Persued the records.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

4. The petitioners challenge the order dated 22nd May, 2001 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner Beed being contrary to the basic principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the provision of law contained in the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record it is seen that, the Assistant Charity Commissioner Beed by the impugned order, while allowing the application, filed by respondent Nos. 4(a) and (b) under section 41-A of the said At, had sought to appoint a Committee of three members for the administration of the trust and its property in question and to maintain the necessary accounts in relation to the income and expenditure of the trust. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said order has been passed without hearing the petitioners and that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has no power to appoint any such Committee under section 41-A of the said Act. On the other hand, it is the contention of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document