( 1 ) THIS is a petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order passed by the Charity Commissioner of the State of Gujarat in Appeal No. 61 of 1960 on April 4 1962 The appeal before the Charity Commissioner was filed against the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner Baroda passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 1957 on January 22 1960 The proceedings were initiated on original application Exhibit 1 dated June 6 1957 that was filed by one Maneklal Mohanlal Parikh who is the second respondent in this petition in the matter of pubic trust of Bethak Mandir alias Shree Dwarkanathji Mandir situated at Madan Zampa Road in Baroda. The order in appeal annexure A to the petition that was passed by the Charity Commissioner is challenged by petitioner Lallubhai Girdharlal Parikh on the ground that it is against law procedure and is without jurisdiction. The original petitioner has died during the pendency of this petition and his legal representatives have continued this petition.

( 2 ) THE material questions that fall for my consideration in this petition are: (i) what is the nature and scope of the enquiry under sec. 19 of the Act; and (ii) what are the powers and duties of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner acting respectively under secs. 19 and 70 of the Act. For the purpose I must consider the scheme of the Act and the functions which the Charity Commissioner exercises in relation to public trusts. Before I do so I may with benefit refer to the following observations made in Re Duncan: In Re Taylors Trusts (1867) 2 Ch. 359:from time to time various Acts were made by the Government both Central and State for controlling mismanagement in the properties of public trusts. However it was only about 1950 in almost every State that Acts for the supervision of public trusts came to be passed. The purpose of the Act as shown by the preamble is to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State and having due regard to the purpose of the Act i. e. it having been passed for the public good it is the duty of the Courts of justice to put such a construction upon it as may tend to the furtherance rather than to the restriction of the powers conferred by it upon the Charity Commissioners. I may now first look to the preamble of the Act. It appears from the preamble of the Act that the Act is enacted to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State. Preamble of a statute has been said to be a good means of finding out its meaning and as if it were a key to the understanding of it. Sec. 2 of the Act defines the various words and expressions used in the Act. Sub-sec. (13) of sec. 2 of the Act defines Public trust as meaning an express or constructive trust for either a public religious or charitable purpose or both and incudes a temple a math a wakf. . . . . . . . . Sub-sec. (17) defines temple as meaning a place by whatever designation known and used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship. Sub-sec. (18) defines trustee as meaning a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons the trust property is vested and includes a manager. Chapter II of the Act which is under the caption Establishment deals with the powers and the qualifications of the Charity Commissioner and the Deputy and Assistant Charity Commissioner and enables one to understand the nature and extent of the powers of the Charity Commissioner. Sec. 3 therein reads as under:

( 3 ) THE State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint an officer to be called the Charity Commissioner who shall exercise such powers and shall perform such duties and functions as are conferred by