JUDGMENT :

Avinash G. Gharote, J.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were before the Trial Court.

2. The appellants, are the original applicants in Scheme Application No.17 of 1987 before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar, for framing up a scheme of the Trust for removal of the predecessors - present respondents and for appointment of new trustees for better administration, management and maintenance of the trust, "Hazrat Sayyad Dalal @ Shaikh Kamal Haq @ Darvesh and Balgorkhana Bagroja, Ahmednagar" registered as PTR No.3/2148/52 (Old PTR No.B-18) in the year 1952. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, by an order dated 31.05.1995 allowed the Scheme Application No.17 of 1987 and provided the Model Scheme for management and development of the public trust, being aggrieved by which an application under Section 72(2) of the then Bombay Public Trusts Act, came to be filed before the District Judge-7, Ahmednagar, being Trust Application No.03 of 2003. The District Judge-7, Ahmednagar, vide his judgment dated 16.01.2012, set aside the order dated 31.05.1995 of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and remanded the matter back for consideration of the right of the legal heirs of the deceased trustees for considering his appointment on the post of Chairman and Managing Trustee on the board of Trustees and their hereditary claim for appointment of trustee by succession and to modify the scheme wherever it was necessary by amendment before conformation of the scheme.

3. The appellants, in this Second Appeal, take exception to this judgment of the District Judge-7, Ahmednagar, dated 16.01.2012, on the ground, that the provisions of Section 72 (2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as "B.P.T. Act"), do not confer a power upon the District Court to remand the matter. This is the only question addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties in this Second Appeal, and they refrain from addressing arguments on merit on the ground, that the answer to the above question would, if given in the positive, would entail a direction to the District Judge, to decide the matter on merits and if given in the negative, would result in the Assistant Charity Commissioner rehearing the matter.

4. Thus, the only question involved in this Second Appeal, is :

"Whether the District Court exercising powers under Section 72(2) of the B.P.T. Act, has powers to remand the application?"

5. It would be material to state here that Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act stands deleted by virtue of Section 24 of Mah. 55 of 2017 dated 01.09.2017, w.e.f. 10.10.2017, however since the impugned judgment u/s 72(2) of the B.P.T. Act, is dated 16.01.2012, the learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the consideration of the issue will survive the deletion of the provision from the Statute Book, as the right conferred by way of Sec.72(2) of the B.P.T. Act, was a substantial right and would continue to govern all matters filed before the deletion, and the deletion would not have a retrospective operation. Mr. N.C. Garud, learned Counsel for the respondent, opposes this submission, contenting that the deletion of Sec.72(2) from the Statute Book, would only amount to a change in the procedure and thus there is no substantive right surviving and therefore submits that the issue need not be considered at all.

6. Shri Bajaj, learned Counsel for the appellants, then invited my attention to the provisions of deleted Section 72(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and strenuously urged that the language used therein does not permit the remand of an application, as filed under Section 72(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. He further argued that the power of remand, is not an inherent power but has to be expressly conferred by statute. He further argued, that the learned District Judge, lost sight of the s