The central legal point established is the interpretation of the mode of succession of Trustees under the Trust Acts and the authority of the Assistant Charity Commissioner to appoint Trustees, emphasizing the due representation of the family that started the Trust.

JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order passed by the Principal District Judge, Wardha, in a Trust Appeal, whereby an order dated 30.12.2006, passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, on a scheme application, was confirmed.

3. The facts in brief leading upto filing of the present petition are that a Trust called 'Shri Mahadeo Deosthan, Babapur', came to be registered on 21.06.1955, under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, which was essentially concerned with a temple. The movable and immovable properties of the Trust were specified and the order passed by Registrar Public Trusts recorded that the mode of succession of office of Trustees of the Trust was by law of inheritance.

4. The original person concerned with the aforesaid Trust was one 'Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe'. On 19.08.1959, the Registrar Public Trusts passed an order, considering the mode of succession as inheritance and held that Gulabrao Dajiba Kombe was the successor as Trustee of the said Trust in place of 'Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe', who had expired. Thereafter, the Trust came to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now rechristened as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950), and an entry to that effect was made in the register on 11.01.1963. Here again, it was recorded that the mode of succession of Trustees was by law of inheritance.

5. During the course of functioning of the said Trust, it appears that certain controversy arose as regards the management of the same, in the context of the temple. Certain complaints were made and eventually on 22.11.1995, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, exercising powers under the Act of 1950, passed an order holding that framing of a scheme was necessary for the better and proper management of the Trust. Accordingly, power was exercised under Section 50A of the Act of 1950, and the parties were directed to file respective draft schemes along with details of persons proposed to be appointed as Trustees. In pursuance thereof, it appears that draft schemes were filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and an order was passed thereon. But, on challenge raised before the District Court, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

6. Eventually on 30.12.2006, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, partly allowed the application under Section 50A of Act of 1950. The schemes proposed by the applicants as well as the non- applicants were rejected and instead scheme framed at Annexure - A to the said order was approved and sanctioned by the Office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Trustees mentioned in the schemes of the rival parties were held to be Adhoc Trustees and it was directed that election would be held. It is relevant that amongst the applicants in the said proceedings, before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, as on today, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the surviving applicants. Similarly, there were two non -applicants in the said proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, of whom only one non-applicant i.e. the petitioner before this Court is surviving.

7. The petitioner and his co-non-applicant i.e. his father were aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2006, passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and they challenged the same before the Court of Principal District Judge, Wardha, by filing Trust Appeal No.1/2007. By the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2015, the appeal stood dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed present writ petition, wherein notice was issued and the respondents appeared through counsel.

8. Mr. Bhoyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments and orders deserved to be interfered with for the reason that specific mode of succession record