H. L. GOKHALE, J.: - Heard Mr. Dwarkadas in support of this petition and Mr. Mokashi, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1, as also Mr. Thorat for respondent Nos. 3 to 36.

2. The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 8 - 2 - 2006 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra, Mumbai, finalising the list of valid members for elections to petitioner No. 1 - trust whereby some 32 new members (i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 36 herein) have become eligible to become members and vote. The petition also seeks to challenge the notice dated 10 - 2 - 2006 fixing the election programme and the Charity Commissioners order dated 14 - 2 - 2006 declining to postpone the elections.

3. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: -

Petitioner No.1 herein is a charitable trust governed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Amongst others, one of the objectives of this trust is to establish and to take over and maintain schools and educational institutions. One Seth Gokuldas Tejpal Charities, another public trust, has been running a school at Dadyseth. Agiary Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai. The said G.T. trust wanted to sell the property as it was not in a position to carry on the educational activities. The petitioner - trust agreed to purchase that property for a consideration of Rs. 5.50 crores and one Mr. Gauti was authorised on behalf of the first petitioner trust to negotiate and finalise that deal. He was given all the powers of the Managing Committee and the regulations of the trust were altered for that purpose and a change report was filed before the Charity Commissioner and it came to be accepted in January, 2000. Petitioner No. 1 - trust needed to raise a loan to make the payment and, hence, negotiations were held with Union Bank of India which sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 4.40 crores. The loan was sanctioned on condition that the trustees will give personal guarantees. Petitioner No.1 trust had already paid Rs. 1.10 crore to the said G.T. trust and the balance was paid after sanction of this loan. Thereafter, it was decided on 5 - 4 - 2004 to let out a part of the premises on the ground floor admeasuring 4,000 sq. ft. to Union Bank of India for 20 years. Some of the members of the trust led by one Mithalal N. Sisodia objected their decisions. Amongst other grievances, they contended that necessary notice was not given to them and other members. Yet a resolution of approval came to be passed thereafter.

4. The above three decisions, viz.,(i) the change report; (ii) the permission to raise a loan of Rs. 4.40 crores; and (iii) grant of lease in favour of Union Bank of India for 20 years, came to be challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 265 of 2005 by Mithalal Sisodia and another member. When the matter came up before this Court, it was pointed out that a personal guarantee of Rs. 2.20 crores had been given by the abovereferred Mr. Gauti (respondent No.8 in that petition). By order dated 9 - 3 - 2005, this Court recorded that respondent Nos. 5 to 36 herein were ready to make their contributions. They wanted to be considered for membership of the trust and contended that only one person i.e. respondent No.8 to that petition could not be permitted to take control of the properties of the trust. Granting membership to such additional persons was opposed on behalf of Mr. Gauti and others by relying upon the judgment in the case of Damyanti V. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966 concerning the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 and the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Sejal Rikeen Dalal V. Stock Exchange Bombay, AIR 1991 Bom. 30 and Abhoy Pado Bose V. Queens Anglo - Sanskrit School, AIR 1916 Oudh 94.

5. After hearing the counsel for all the parties, this Court was of the view that the Asstt. Charity Commissioner had erred in passing the orders and the Charity Commissioner had further erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him when revisions w