The main legal point established in the judgment is that the framing of a new scheme under Section 50A (1) of the B.P.T. Act must be supported by substantial reasons and must be necessary and expedient for the proper management or administration of a public trust. The Court also emphasized that the Assistant Charity Commissioner must give due opportunity of hearing only to the trustees of the trust and that the powers available under Section 72 (2) of the B.P.T. Act do not contemplate hearing to beneficiaries of the trust.

1. By this common Judgment both the abovementioned appeals are being disposed of together inasmuch as they arise out of same Judgment rendered by learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Osmanabad in proceedings under Section 72 (2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (For short, the B.P.T.Act), bearing Misc.C.A. No.102 of 2005. Though the appeals were registered as First Appeals, yet they are treated as Second Appeals in view of "Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi since deceased by heirs Shrikant Shivprasad and other vs. Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar since deceased by her heirs and others " 1998 (1) Mh.L.J.444.

2. Ashta Shikshan Sanstha, Ashta (Kasar), is a registered society and Trust. Somewhere in 1965, few founder members formed the educational trust. A scheme was settled for administration of the trust at the time of registration of the trust. The said scheme settled on 29.8.1965 was operative until framing of impugned scheme by the Assistant Charity Commissioner as per his order dated 18.1.2000. There were seven Trustees, who were appointed as first Board of Trustees/Managing Committee. They comprised of a group headed by President Narsing Apparao Balsure and Shivmurtiappa Mahadappa Phundipalle as Vice President and Dattatraya Narayanrao Chaudhari as Secretary. The Managing Committee was empowered to admit new members. It appears that before framing of the new scheme, as per impugned order rendered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, there were approximately 150 members of the educational trust.

3. An application (Enquiry Appl.No.118/1992) was filed by three applicants seeking framing of a new scheme under Section 50A (1) of the B.P.T.Act. for proper management and administration of the trust. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner held that there was no necessity to frame a new scheme for proper administration and management of the trust. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner further held that the original applicants in the said proceedings were not entitled to file the application inasmuch as they were not members of the trust. They were held ineligible to move an application for framing of a new scheme. The application was dismissed. The decision became final as the District Court also confirmed the dismissal in an appeal.

4. There were proceedings held before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad in an application (Misc.Appl.No.2/1992) seeking removal of all the trustees from Managing Committee. The Joint Charity Commissioner held that one of the Managing Trustee, viz. Dattatraya Chaudhari alienated a piece of agricultural land owned by the trust without prior permission of the Joint Commissioner and entered into compromise in a Civil Suit (RCS No.288/1993) with a view to cause wrongful loss to the Trust property. The Joint Charity Commissioner held that all the managing trustees mismanaged the administration of the trust and were guilty of committing misfeasance or malfeasance. So, they were removed in the exercise of powers under Section 41 (d) of the B.P.T.Act. The order was challenged by the concerned trustees in proceedings under Section 72 of the B.P.T.Act (Misc.Appl.No.103/2005). The learned Ist Ad-hoc Additional District Judge dismissed the application - appeal by order dated 6.2.2006. A Second Appeal (S.A.No.191/2007) is filed against the said Judgment and Order, which is pending in this Court.

5. By filing an application, under Section 50A (1) of the B.P.T.Act, one Apparao Saibanna Shidore and Virsangappa Sharnappa Alange again sought framing of scheme for the educational trust in question. Their application (Enq.Appl.No.140/1999) was founded on allegation that the existing scheme of the trust was insufficient for proper management of the trust. They asserted that the erstwhile trustees did not make efforts to amend the Constitution and the scheme of the trust so as to make it viable for effective admini