JUDGMENT

P R Bora, J. - Since both these appeals are arising out of the common order passed on 17th October, 2018 by Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur, I have heard the common arguments in both these appeals and I deem it appropriate to decide these appeals by a common reasoning.

2. The material on record reveals that two applications were filed, one under the provision of Section 41-D and another under Section 41-E of The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the present respondents. The material on record further reveals that in both these applications, the appellants in both these appeals filed the applications seeking intervention in the said applications. The material on record further reveals that the then Joint Charity Commissioner, vide order passed on 2nd June, 2018, allowed the intervention of the present appellants, holding them to be the persons interested in the affairs of the Trust being the beneficiaries. The material on record further reveals that during the course of hearing of these applications, certain documents came to be placed on record and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed on 17th October, 2018. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has ultimately recorded a finding that the appellants in both the appeals cannot be held to be the persons having interest in the affairs of the subject trust and that is the reason that the application has been finally rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Aggrieved by, the present appeals are filed.

3. Shri Mantri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, relying on two judgments of the Hon''ble Apex court, first in the case of Barkat Ali and Anr. Vs. Badri Narain (D) by Lrs., (2008) AIR SC 1272 and another in the case of Satyadhan Ghoshal Vs. Deorajin Debi, (1960) AIR SC 941 , submitted that once the Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded a finding holding the present appellants to be the persons having interest in the Trust affairs being the beneficiaries of the trust, he was estopped from recording any contrary finding. The learned counsel submitted that on this count alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that the Joint Charity Commissioner has, in fact, rejected the applications filed by the original petitioners. The learned counsel further pointed out that, however, suo motu inquiry has also been initiated against the present respondents and the same is going on. The learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances, the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner shall be set aside and the present applications be tagged with the suo motu inquiry being conducted against the present respondents and an opportunity be given to the present appellants to participate in the said inquiry.

4. Shri Gunale, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, submitted that the principles of res judicata would not apply to the proceedings under the said Act and more particularly in relation to the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise, the present appellants no way can be held to be the persons having no interest in the affairs of the trust. The learned counsel referred to the definitions under the said Act and submitted that in view of the definitions as are provided in the Act, the present appellants are rightly held to be the persons interested in the affairs of the trust. The learned counsel, in the circumstances, submitted for rejecting the appeals and to confirm the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.

5. Shri Sabnis, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.14 to 18, in addition to the submissions made by Shri Gunale, submitted that the very object behind incorporating the provisions under Sections 41-D and 41-E of the Act, are required to be taken into account. The learned counsel read out the said prov