1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

3. A brief historiette of lis would suffice. The Writ Petition No.3017 of 2007, takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry No.400 of 2007 passed on 3rd May, 2007. Writ petition No.3401 of 2007 challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry No.415 of 2007, dated 22nd May, 2007.

4. Writ Petition No.3017, as noted above, challenges the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule in Inquiry Application No.400 of 2007. This proceeding/ inquiry application, indisputably, is registered at the instance of learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule Region, Dhule (suo motu). It appears that Borvihir Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Taluka and District Dhule (hereinafter referred to as the trust, for short) is shown to be opponent in that inquiry application. It is also not in dispute that neither the present petitioners nor any other person, was heard by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner while passing the order in Inquiry Application No.400 of 2007. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has noted that the trust in question is a registered public trust. The said trust is having its constitution/ rules and regulations for the management of the trust. It provides a managing committee consisting of 15 members, including the office bearers like President, Vice President and Secretary. The tenure of the managing committee is five years. Earlier, there were two change reports, filed by two groups. They were registered as Inquiry Application No.200 of 2003 and 211 of 2003. Parties met half way in 2004. Both the groups submitted withdrawal Purshis on 22nd November, 2004, in their respective change reports. Both the change reports were allowed to be withdrawn. Thereafter, one Shri Raghunath Motiram Patil had filed a change report on 10th January, 2005. It was registered as Inquiry Application No.13 of 2005. Meanwhile, one Mr. Bhagwant Vitthal Patil and Popat Jairam Patil filed applications under section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, for short). They were seeking direction for holding elections. It was registered as Inquiry Application No.10 of 2005. Inquiry Application No.10 of 2005 was withdrawn at the instance of the applicants. . The change report No.13 of 2005, after hearing the parties, came to be rejected. According to Respondent No.3, since change report No.13 of 2005 is rejected by him, all those persons claiming to be elected, and officiating as "Trustees" of the trust in question, have lost their status as "Trustees". He felt necessity of management of the trust. He, therefore, appointed one Mr. N.B.Shewale, Inspector from his office as Election Officer to hold the elections for new managing committee of the trust. He also gave further direction to Mr. Shewale for holding such elections and other directions. This order, as noted above, is impugned in Writ Petition No.3017 of 2007.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Dhorde submitted that the petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned order. He relied on some judicial pronouncements, which are enlisted herein below: (1) "Canara Bank and others V/s Shri Debasis Das and others" reported in 2000 AIR SCW 1561. - The Apex Court held that when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue, hearing needs to be given to the affected party. (2) "Netai Bag and others V/s The State of West Bengal and others" reported in 2000 AIR SCW 3590. - The Apex Court held that an executive agency must be rigorously held to standards by which it professes its actions should be judged. (3) "The Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association (Regd.) and another V/s