The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with the principle of natural justice and the application of the legal maxim 'de minimis non curat lex' in the context of Trust membership.

1. This Appeal under Section 72 (4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now Maharashtra Act instead of Bombay Act) is arising from the Judgment and order dated 10.08.2009 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur rejecting Change Report and Regular Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2009.

2. Heard the submissions at the bar.

3. This second appeal was admitted on 15.06.2012 by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Could the finding recorded by the Joint charity Commissioner and then confirmed by the District Judge upholding disqualification of the Members admitted to the Trust as was held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is the result of the misinterpretation of clause (6) of the scheme of the Trust and thus, the finding of the Courts below is wholly unwarranted and unsustainable in law?

(ii) Whether the learned District Judge and Learned Joint commissioner were right in upholding the finding that the members of the Trust were rightly disqualified when the opportunity of hearing was not given and thus, the decision of the Courts below impugned are bad in law?

My answer for question nos. (i) and (ii) is that for non-compliance of the principle of natural justice, the impugned orders are unsustainable for the following reasons.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no any breach of any provision of the Constitution of the Trust and therefore, the District Judge ought to have accepted the Change Report. Learned District judge erred in holding that the Committee, while enrolling the members, committed legal error by accepting less amount than prescribed in the Scheme of the Trust. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no intention to make it mandatory to pay more than the sum of Rs. l ,00,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- for patron, life and ordinary membership respectively. Learned Counsel argued that the members enrolled were not invalid members for paying a rupee less. Learned Counsel urged that the contract do not become voidable for the miniscule amount.

5. Reference is made to the ruling in Vinayak vs. State of Goa reported in 1995 (2) Mh. L.J. 905.

6. On the other hand, it is contended that specific emphasis is laid by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, who framed the Scheme in clause (6) of the Scheme to mention prefix that a person who pays more than or above Rs. 1,00,000/- be called "Patron Member" a person who pays more than or above Rs. 10,000/- be called Life Member and a person who pays more than or above Rs. 1,000/- be called as ordinary member. Thus, the intention of the Authority to lay emphasis on the word more than or above applied to all different membership was made clear showing that something more than was necessary to achieve a category of membership, Patron, lifetime, or ordinary. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the legal lacunae cannot be allowed to be filled in at the stage of Second Appeal as illegality would remain as it is. Reference is made to the ruling in Lomdas vs. State of Maharashtra, 1993 Mh. L.J 1056. The inquiry under Section 22 is judicial and legality and validity of membership is the subject of inquiry.

7. It is further contended that in Second Appeal, as observed in F.M. Irani vs. Sardar, 2001 (2) Mh. L.J. 654 only substantial question of law should be entertained and findings of facts must not be interfered as legal lacunae cannot be allowed to be filled in at the stage of the Second Appeal. In other words, illegality would remain as it is. It is contended that legality and validity of membership is subject of the inquiry under Section 22, which is judicial. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted this Court ought not to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

8. In Hero Vinoth (minor) vs. Seshammal, 2006(3) ALL MR 129 (SC): (2006) 5 SCC 545, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:-

"The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts be