JUDGMENT :

Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard Shri P.K. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri C.S. Dhabe, Advocate with Shri V.A. Dhabe, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, by which the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950") is allowed and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are granted permission to file civil suit against the petitioner- Society. The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that it is passed without giving notice to the petitioner-Society and without hearing the petitioner-Society. Relying on the proviso below Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Rules, 1951 (for short "the Rules of 1951"), it is argued by learned Advocate for the petitioner that consent to file civil suit as per Section 51 of the Act of 1950 cannot be granted unless trustees of the public trust against which the civil suit is proposed to be filed are given an opportunity of hearing.

4. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 argued that there is nothing either in Section 51 of the Act of 1950 or in Rule 27 of the Rules of 1951 which casts an obligation on the applicant to implead the proposed defendants as non-applicants in the application filed before the Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the Act of 1950. Referring to Clause (f) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1951 it is argued that names and addresses of the trustees and Management of the Public Trust of which the applicants are members were required to be given and this provision has been complied by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the names of trustees of Maharashtra Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Sihora were given in the application filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the Act of 1950.

Shri P.K. Mohta, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out concluding portion of paragraph No. 17 of the application which was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner where it is stated that in the proposed civil suit, the contesting defendant would be Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Amravati. At page 44 of the paper book of petition, copy of plaint of Special Civil Suit No. 111/2018, which is filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after seeking permission under Section 51 of the Act of 1950, is placed on record. In this civil suit, Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha i.e. present petitioner is shown as defendant No. 4. Shri Maharashtra Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Sihora is not shown as defendant in the civil suit. In these facts, I find that the submission made on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Amravati i.e. present petitioner was not required to be impleaded as non-applicant in the application filed under Section 51 of the Act of 1950, is misleading.

5. Relying on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Bai W/o Mohamed Mulla and Others vs. Charity Commissioner, Bombay and Others, (1999) 2 Mh. L.J. 26, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 argued that the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act of 1950 is not a judicial enquiry. In the present matter I am not required to deal with the issue as to whether the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act of 1950 is judicial enquiry or not. Hence, the judgment relied upon by Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not relevant.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that Section 51(1) of the Act of 1950 lays down that before passing any order the Charity Commissioner should hear the "parties" which means the persons, who filed application under Section 51 of the Act of 1950 and the trust/persons against whom civil suit is proposed to be filed. Advocate for petitioners pointed out that as per proviso below Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1951 also, the Ch