P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Kumbhakoni for the Petitioner, Mr. Railkar for Respondent No.1, Mr. Bhadbhade for Respondent No.2 and 3 and the learned AGP Ms. Cardozo for Respondent No.9.

2. By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 20th July, 2005 passed by the Charity Commissioner (M.S.), Mumbai in Application No.24 of 1998 thereby dismissing the same. That application was filed under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The litigation has a checkered history.

3. Saunsthan Shree Bhargavram Parshuram bearing P.T.R. No.A1 (Ratnagiri) is a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the said Act.

BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS

4. On 16th January, 1982, the State of Maharashtra declared its intention to protect the temple maintained by said Trust as the same was a protected monument defined in Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960.

5. On 16th March, 1983, by a notification, said Temple was declared as a protected monument.

6. on 3rd May, 1984, a scheme was framed by the then District and Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, by way of decree passed in Suit No.8 of 1971, filed by the Charity Commissioner. As per the said scheme, Trustees are to be appointed by learned District Judge, Ratnagiri, under Clause 9(c) of the Scheme.

7. On 26th September, 1984, learned District Judge, by its order appointed 6 trustees.

8. On 25th September, 1989, subsequently, by order, six trustees were appointed. Then tenure of said appointed trustees was extended from time to time upto 19th November, 1995.

9. On 11th May, 1994, Petitioner submitted several complaints with the learned District Judge, as the said trustees were mismanaging the affairs of trust. Similar complaints were filed on 18th July, 1994, 8th November, 1994, 28th December, 1994 and 22nd January, 1995.

10. On 11th November, 1994, State of Maharashtra denotified the temple of said Trust as a protected monument.

11. On 18th September, 1995, learned District Judge, vide its order appointed 7 trustees for a period 1995 to 2000, thereby continuing the appointment of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

12. On 19th July, 1996, this Court was pleased to dispose of Writ Petition bearing No.860 of 1996, giving certain directions to the learned District Judge to hear the complaint submitted by the Petitioner in accordance with law.

13. On 18th February, 1997, learned District Judge conducted an enquiry and was pleased to prepare a report in the present dispute. The Ld. District Judge was pleased to hold that the construction and/or renovation started and completed by the trustees was in contravention of Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960. However, the learned District Judge was of the view that the then body of Trustees may be permitted to continue as one more chance, with necessary strict directions.

14. On 12th January, 2001, lastly, the learned District Judge, by its order appointed 7 trustees i.e. the present Respondents for period 2001 to 2006. Petitioner again moved this Court by way of Writ Petition bearing No.355 of 1998 seeking removal of Trustees.

15. On 16th February, 1998, this Court (Coram: M. B. Shah and R. J. Kochar JJ) was pleased to dismiss Writ Petition No.355 of 1998, and directed the Petitioner to approach appropriate Forum.

16. On 19th August, 1998, Petitioner preferred application bearing No.24 of 1998, before the learned Charity Commissioner, under Section 41D of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, seeking removal of the said Trustees.

17. On 23rd August, 2000, learned Charity Commissioner was pleased to reject the application preferred by the Petitioner under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The learned Charity Commissioner was of the view that it is not necessary to frame any charges against the said Trustees.

18. On 5th September, 2002, this Court (Coram: D. K. Deshmukh J.) after hearing both the sides was ple