Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Vasantrao s/o. Vishwanathrao Mane & Ors. Vs. Apparao s/o. Baibanna Sidore & Ors., 2008(2) ALL MR 95 and in particular para 30 of the said judgment. Relying upon said judgment and provisions of subsection (2) of section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Court is not given specific power of remand likewise one available under Order 41, rules 23 and 27 of the C.P.C. In the proceedings under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the powers which will be exercised by the Court are circumscribed by sub-clause (II). The Court can confirm, revoke or modify the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, however, Court has no jurisdiction to remand the matter back to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for fresh adjudication or reconsideration. Therefore, according to learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, the judgment and order passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

2. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents concedes to the position that the Principal District Judge, Beed, should not have remanded the matter back to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vasantrao,[2008(2) ALL MR 95(Supra). However, she submits that the District Court may be directed to dispose of the Misc. Civil Application Nos. 392 of 2009 and 334 of 2010 within stipulated period.

3. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. This Second Appeal raises following substantial questions of law :-

(i) Whether the Principal District Judge, Beed, was empowered and justified in remanding the matter back to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, for fresh enquiry, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Vasantrao (Supra) and in particular para 30 of said judgment?

(ii) Whether the powers conferred upon Court by subsection (2) of section 72 of the B.P.T. Act, would empower the District Court to remand the matter back for fresh enquiry to the Assistant Charity Commissioner?

4. On the aforesaid substantial questions of law, admit. On admission, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service of notice.

5. It is not necessary to go to any of the aspects of the matter. This Court in the case of Vasantrao, [2008(2) ALL MR 95] (Supra) in para 30 held as under :-

“30. The learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional District Judge remanded the matter to the Assistant Charity Commissioner in order to give fresh hearing to the members and beneficiaries of the Trust etc. for settlement of a new scheme. The provisions of Section 50A do not contemplate hearing to beneficiaries of the Trust. The Charity Commissioner is required to give due opportunity of hearing only to the Trustees of the Trust. The non members of the Trust need not be heard in respect of proposed new scheme. The powers available under Section 72 (2) of the B.P.T. Act are specific. The power of the Court is to confirm, revoke or modify the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Court is not given specific power of “remand” like wise one available under Order 41, Rules 23 and 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the proceedings under Section 72, the powers, which may be exercised by the Court, are circumscribed by sub-clause (2). The sub-clause (2) reads as followed :

“S.72. Application from Charity Commissioner’s decision under section 40, 41, 41-C and 43(2)(2) and (C), 50A, 70 or 70A etc. :

(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(1A) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2) The Court after taking evidence if any, may confirm, revoke or modify the decision or remit the amount of the surcharge and make such orders as to costs as it thinks proper in the circumstances.”.

The District Court can, therefore, confirm, revoke or modify the decision of the Charity Commissioner. The District Court