( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are the Trustee and Manager respectively of a Public Trust which owns properties in Ahmedabad. The respondents herein had applied to the Charity Commissioner under sec. 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to file a suit under sec. 50 of the Act. That application was on the footing that the petitioners had committed breaches of trust and were acting against the interests of the trust by mismanaging and misapplying the trust funds and mal administering the trust property. The Joint Charity Commissioner held an inquiry into the matter heard both the parties and by his order dated August 5 1969 he dismissed the application with costs. Against this order of the Joint Charity Commissioner the respondents filed an appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of sec. 51 (2) of the Act. On behalf of the petitioners a contention was raised before the Revenue Tribunal that since the legal proceedings in the shape of an appeal before the Revenue Tribunal raised a question affecting the Public Religious or Charitable purpose the Tribunal could not proceed to determine such question until after notice had been given to the Charity Commissioner. That objection was turned down. There was also an application to join the Charity Commissioner as a party to the appeal and that application was also rejected. It is against this decision of the Revenue Tribunal rejecting this application to join the Charity Commissioner that the present Special Civil Application under Art. 227 has been filed.

( 2 ) SEC. 56b of the Act provides56 (1) In any suit or legal proceedings in which it appears to the court that any question affecting a public religious or charitable purpose is involved the court shall not proceed to determine such question until after notice has been given to the Charity Commissioner. (3) In this section Court shall mean any Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Gujarat. MR. B. R. Shah for the petitioners contends that the words Civil Court mean a court where civil proceedings are entertained. Now it must be borne in mind that there are three broad categories of all courts viz. Revenue Courts Criminal Courts and civil Courts but there is a common feature of all courts which must be possessed before the designation Court can be applied to any Tribunal or body and that essential characteristic is the adjudicatory process where the court concerned will adjudicate upon a particular dispute. In deciding whether the sanction to prosecute a particular suit under sec. 50 of the Act should or should not be granted the Charity Commissioner does not adjudicate upon any dispute; and it is for him after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit to give his consent to the suit being filed. This function is purely administrative and in these proceedings under sec. 51 the Charity Commissioner cannot be said to adjudicate upon any dispute between the parties. Looking to the interests of the charity as a whole he has to decide whether to give his consent to the filing of a suit for which an application has been filed; and whether it is in the interests of charity to grant such consent or not. In doing so he does not adjudicate upon any dispute. The appeal under sec. 51 (2) lies to the Revenue Tribunal against the decision of the Charity Commissioner refusing to give his consent to the institution of a suit; and the scope of the powers of the Revenue Tribunal cannot be wider than the scope of the authority of the first instance i. e. the Charity Commissioner. Surely the Revenue Tribunal exercising the appellate powers under sec. 51 (2) can exercise the same powers as the Charity Commissioner but it is not open to the Revenue Tribunal functioning under sec. 51 (2) to adjudicate upon any dispute or to decide any question either of fact or of law while deciding the appeal under sec. 51 (2 ). Under these circumstances the Revenue Tribu