JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent No.1/State. None appears for the respondent No.2, though served.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent by the parties.

3. The present petition arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati, allowing the application moved by the respondent No.2 for condonation of delay in filing the proceeding under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.

4. The petitioner is the Secretary of the trust, namely Shri Ganeshdas Rathi Chatralaya, Amravati. Initially one change report bearing No.757 of 1998 was filed, the same was objected by Mohanlal Nandlal Bang, the father of the respondent No.2 as nominee of Radhakishan Rathi, a member of the trust in ‘Sanrakshak’ category. After the death of Mohanlal Bang, the respondent No.2 was substituted as an objector as Radhakisan Rathi appointed him as nominee. The said change report was accepted on 19.01.2009 and therefore, the respondent No.2 preferred an appeal against the said acceptance of change report. In the meanwhile the change report bearing inquiry No.602 of 2001, 524 of 2004, 435 of 2007, 577 of 2010 and 995 of 2013 came to be filed in respect of the subsequent elections. Subsequently, all the change reports were accepted vide judgment dated 28.04.2016. The respondent No.2 filed objection in the change report No.602 of 2001 and 524 of 2004.

5. It is the case of respondent No. 2 that, he has no knowledge about the acceptance of those change reports and after the new elections were held, he got knowledge about the same and accordingly, the delay was caused.

6. The petitioner after appearing in the said proceeding under Section 70 of the Trust Act filed his reply at Exh.9 and raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal and to the application for condonation of delay on various grounds, including the ground that all the trustees are not made party to the appeal as well as to the application for condonation of delay and therefore, both the appeal and the application for condonation of delay, are not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party.

7. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati while rejecting the said preliminary objection, has held that in the proceedings under Section 22 or under Section 70 of the Trust Act, co-trustees are not the necessary party, as they are representing by reported trustees. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner after rejecting the said preliminary objection proceeded further and decided the application on merit and allowed the same vide judgment and order dated 15.01.2018. The same is the subject matter in the present writ petition.

8. From the above referred facts and the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, it is evident that the whole controversy revolves around a question, whether all the trustees are necessary party to the appeal filed under Section 70 of the Trust Act challenging the acceptance of change report ?

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since the proceeding under Section 22 of the Trust Act is of a judicial character and the inquiry is being a judicial scrutiny, it cannot be a mere factual process or one purely formal in nature.

10. It is submitted that the minimal requirement of a judicial inquiry and a judicial process is compliance with the principles of natural justice, though these principles are not embodied in Rules.

11. He further submits that the application for condonation of delay and the appeal filed under Section 70 of the Trust Act, without making all the trustees as party, ought to have been rejected by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary party. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Vithalrao … Vs.