By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 25.08.1983 passed in Change Report Inquiry No. 612 of 1983 in the matter of a Public Trust. By said orders, the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur Region, Nagpur, working under Respondent No. 4 herein has held that property shown as property of Public Trust by name Gupta Dharamshala deserved to be deleted from the Register of Public Trust maintained by the office of Respondent No. 4 and has further observed that as there is no property of Trust, the Trust comes to an end. The entries of the Trust made in the Public Trust register were also directed to be deleted. This order was challenged initially before the Division Bench and the petition was entertained as Public Interest Litigation. On 28.12.2004, this Court granted interim relief and restrained present Respondents No. 1 & 2 from carrying on any construction activities on the site of Gupta Dharamshala. This interim order continues to operate even today. On 07.07.2010, Division Bench of this Court found that the litigation was liable to be tried under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, it was not inclined to continue to treat it as Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be placed before the Single Judge.

2. In this background, I have heard Shri Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Thakare, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondent No. 4 & 5.

3. The contention of Shri Shelat, learned counsel is, after Trust was registered in the light of dedication effected vide written document dated 16.04.1961, the persons executing that document viz., Gauri Dullayabai and Shamabai did not remain its owner. The trust was registered on 05.12.1961 and Shamabai expired on 28.10.1962. The other lady viz. Gauri Dullayabai expired on 10.05.1971. The present Respondent No. 2 moved Deputy Charity Commissioner by filing an application under Section 22A of the Act and contended that Gauri Dullayabai executed a Will in relation to property of Public Trust on 10.03.1970 and same was bequeathed to Respondent No. 2, hence, the property needed to be deleted from Public Trust register. Without issuing any notice or public advertisement or public enquiry, Deputy Charity Commissioner mechanically granted that request and thereby ordered deregistration of the Trust.

4. Shri Shelat, learned counsel has pointed out that Respondent No. 2 moved Deputy Charity Commissioner in 1983 and thereafter impugned order has been passed on 25.08.1983. His contention is, after registration of Trust on 05.12.1961, Deputy Charity Commissioner had no such jurisdiction and power. He has contended that recourse to Section 22A of the Act for said purpose is arbitrary and “particulars” required to be looked into there must be shown to be in existence at the time when Trust was registered. He has further contended that particulars relevant under said provision are the particulars in favour of the cause of Public Trust and a person claiming adversely to such Trust is not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of K.P. Jamadar vs. K.M. Irani, reported at AIR 1973 Bom. 130. In the alternative, without prejudice to his contentions, he has pointed out that Trust was created by two widows together and one widow i.e. Shamabai expired on 28.10.1962 itself. The alleged Will has been executed by surviving widow on 10.03.1970. The said Will, therefore, cannot have any effect insofar as dedication of property to Public Trust by Shamabai is concerned. It is his further contention that on 10.03.1970 Gauri Dullayabai was also not an owner and competent to execute any such Will.

5. To point out to this Court the obligations of the Truste