The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 3.2.2008 basically on the ground that such a revision is not maintainable, without application for condo nation of delay, and as Sections 18 and 29 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (BPT Act) are not mentioned in clause (1) of Section 70 of the BPT Act and further that his application on merit was not at all considered while passing the impugned order.

2. Section 70 of the BPT Act though not specifically mentioned Sections 18 and 29, yet the reading of Section 29 which is reproduced below, makes the position very clear that the Authority in a case where public Trust is created by Will and if any application is made, the provisions of Chapter IV including Sections 14 to 31 mutatis mutandis apply to the registration of the Trust. This itself means apart from Sections 18 and 29 all other Sections of that Chapter which included Sections 20, 22, 22A and 28 are applicable to the application for registration. Therefore any order passed in such application though by invoking of Section 29 of the BPT Act, an Appeal from finding of Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner is maintainable.

29, Public trust created by will

In the case of the public trust which is created by a will, the executor of such will shall within one month from the date on which the probate of the will is granted or within six months from the date the testator’s death [whichever is earlier] make an application for the registration in the manner provided in section 18 and the provisions of this Chapter shall mutatis mutandis apply to the registration of such trust:

[Provided that the period prescribed herein for making an application for registration may for sufficient cause, be extended by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner concerned.]"

3. In view of above, it is clear that Section 70A of the BPT Act contemplates and provides/gives power to the Charity Commissioner to call for and examine the records and proceedings either suo motu or on an application. Therefore, though there is no Appeal preferred under section 70 within a prescribed period the revisional power is given to the Charity Commissioner to pass order either suo motu or on an application filed. Such revision, in my view, is maintainable. There is no bar of any kind. While considering Section 70A, the provisions of Section 70 need to be read together for deciding whether such revision is maintainable or no.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners on this same analogy submits that clause (2) of Section 70 must be read together for the purposes of limitation in filing the revision under Section 70A of the BPT Act. This, in my view, is unacceptable. Section 70 itself is very clear which deals with the Appeal from the findings of Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner that should be filed within 60 days. But there is no such specific clause or provision is made in Section 70A of the BPT Act. Once these sections, as well as provisions, as referred above, are clear and in absence of any specific provision in Section 70A about the limitation in filing revision application, I see there is no reason to accept the submission as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The power of Charity commissioner to call for and/or examine the records, even suo motu is also relevant facet. It means, the concerned Authority, at any point of time, if case is made out, either on application or even otherwise, can call for and examine the records and proceedings of such case. There is no limitation prescribed for invoking such power under this Section. It is desirable that such power should be exercised within a reasonable time, but as contended that cannot be the reason to dismiss the revision on the ground of limitation in the present case.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Virbala K. Kewalram & ors. vs. Ramchand Lalchand & 94 ors., 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 94, which also supports that no limitation under section 70A i