1. Heard.

2. These three appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the District Judge-2, Aurangabad allowing applications bearing MARJI nos. 155 of 2006, 141 of 2006 and 156 of 2006, filed under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short the B.P.T. Act).

3. At the outset it may be mentioned that in Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi Vs. Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar reported in AIR 1998 BOMBAY 131Division Bench of this Court has held that an appeal against the order passed by the District Judge in application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, is in the nature of second appeal and would be governed by the limitations imposed by section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and can be admitted only as regards a substantial question of law.

4. A trust by name Shri Chintamani Parshwanath Digambar Jain Atishay Kshetra Kachner is registered under the B.P.T. Act under registration no. BTR/A/3054 and the same is hereinafter referred to as "the Trust". It appears that some persons made a complaint about mis-administration and mis-management by the trustees of the Trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, appointed an Inspector working in his office to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit a report. After the preliminary enquiry the Inspector submitted his report on 15.1.2004. On the basis of the report of the Inspector the Assistant Charity Commissioner issued a notice to the trustees. The trustees sent their reply on 14.5.2004. After consideration of the report of the Inspector and the reply of the trustees the Assistant Charity Commissioner, initiated a suo-motu enquiry vide an order dated 25.8.2004 and issued notices of enquiry to the complainant and trustees to show cause why a scheme under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act be not framed for the better administration of the trust. All the trustees appeared and filed their response to the notice. After hearing the trustees the Assistant Charity Commissioner, by his judgment and order dated 31.3.2006, framed a scheme for the better management and administration of the Trust and appointed 11 persons as the first trustees of the trust. Aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner framing the scheme, three groups of persons filed three separate applications under section 72 of the B.P.T. Act before the District Court for setting aside the decision of the Charity Commissioner. All the three applications were heard together and by a common judgment and order dated 10.3.2008 the District Judge 2, Aurangabad allowed the applications and set aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. That order is impugned in these appeals.

5. Appellants were two of the existing trustees of the Trust before the scheme; they are

also the trustees appointed as first trustees under the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act. However, since the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner has been set aside by the District Court fearing that they may lose original trustyship they appear to have approached this Court challenging the order of the District Court setting aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner framing the scheme.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the original applications made by three group of applicants under section 72 of the B.P.T. Act were not maintainable as they had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. He therefore submitted that the order of the District Judge requires to be set aside. He further submitted that the observations made by the learned District Judge in paragraph 16 and 25 of his order tend to suggest that the notices were not issued to the original trustees. These observations were patently incorrect inasmuch as notices were issued to all the trustees and they were heard in the matter. The order of the District Judge proceeds on the wrong premise tha