JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the power of review can be exercised by the Deputy Charity Commissioner while holding an enquiry under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the Act of 1950).

Rule. Heard finally by making the Rule returnable forthwith.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is the reporting trustee who has filed Change Report No.1110/2004 seeking to report a change that had occurred in respect of a public Trust duly registered under the provisions of the Act of 1950. In those proceedings the reporting trustee filed an application seeking delivery of interrogatories. A reply was filed by the respondents and on 28/04/2015 the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner rejected that application. The reporting trustee thereafter filed an application for a review of that order alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner by the impugned order was pleased to reject the application for review on the ground that there was no provision in the Act of 1950 conferring the power of review for being exercised. Being aggrieved the said order has been challenged by the reporting trustee.

3. Shri K. Gour, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner committed an error in holding that the power of review was not conferred under provisions of the Act of 1950. According to him while adjudicating the proceedings under Section 22 of the Act 1950, the Deputy Charity Commissioner exercises judicial powers as conferred by Section 73 of the Act of 1950. The same powers as are vested in Courts while trying a suit are conferred on the Officer holding such enquiry. Referring to provisions of Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Rules, 1951 (for short, the said Rules) it was submitted that while holding such enquiry under Section 22 of the Act of 1950, the procedure prescribed for the trial of suits under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (for short, the Act of 1887) is required to be followed. Under the Act of 1887 the provisions of Section 17 prescribe applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code). Since the procedure prescribed in the Code is the procedure to be followed in a Court of Small Causes in all suits cognizable by it, it was clear that the power of review was available with the Deputy Charity Commissioner for being exercised in an enquiry under Section 22 of the Act of 1950. He also referred to Circular No.242 issued by the learned Charity Commissioner in the form of instructions to be followed while holding an enquiry under the Act of 1950. To support his contentions the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Vithoba Babaji Ghodke vs. Balkrishna Ganesh Bhalerao, (1967) MhLJ 224, Balaji s/o Bhikaji Kapale and anr. vs. Punjaji s/o Balaji Tayade and ors., (2001) 4 MhLJ 821, Arjun Kisan Bhagat and ors. vs. Nana Laxman Tapkire and ors. and thus submitted that in the light of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions the power of review was available with the Deputy Charity Commissioner for being exercised while conducting an enquiry under Section 22 of the said Act.

4. Per contra, Shri S. D. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 supported the impugned order and submitted that the power of review was not available with the Deputy Charity Commissioner for being exercised in such enquiry. Placing reliance on the decision in Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edros (dead) by LRs vs. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab and ors., (1998) AIR SC 1624 it was submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in the said decision has held that the provisions of the Code were not applicable to proceedings for framing a scheme under Section 50-A of the Act of 1950. He also referred to the decision in Anna s/o Shriram Fate vs. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Anr., (2005) 2 MhLJ 298 wherei