G.B. SHAH, J.

The present Special Civil Applications have been filed by the petitioners under Arts. 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India and also under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 challenging the order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013.

2. Rule.

Heard Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned Advocate for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3278 of 2013 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Shelat with learned Advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3556 of 2013 and Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 in both the Special Civil Applications and Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 in both the above-referred Special Civil Applications. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have fairly submitted that both the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply in Special Civil Application No. 3278 of 2013 respectively and the same shall be treated as their affidavit-in-reply for Special Civil Application No. 3556 of 2013. As identical issue is involved in both the above referred Special Civil Applications the same are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners are Satsangi and are the follower of Swaminarayan Sampraday. The petitioners have been donating substantial amount every year to the respondent No. 1 - Trust and they are also voters in the Trust. The respondent No.1 - Trust is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioners that as there have been large-scale irregularities including manipulation in the list of persons who have given dharmada the petitioners and some other persons filed application being Application No. 41/18/2011 before the Joint Charity Commissioner under the provisions of Sec. 41A of the Act seeking certain directions. The petitioners submit that by order dated 22-7-2011, the Joint Charity Commissioner issued certain directions to the respondent No. 1 - Trust. Thereafter, the Joint Charity Commissioner has passed further bi-partite order on 24-8-2012. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent No. 1 - Trust filed Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 before this High Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 11-3-2013 held that the Joint Charity Commissioner was competent to entertain the Application No. 41/18/2011 and. rejected the petition challenging the order dated 24-8-2012 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 - Trust was proceeding further without complying the directions issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner and as confirmed by this Court, the petitioners filed application Exh. 85 dated 14-3-2013 in Application No. 41/18/2011 before the Joint Charity Commissioner seeking further directions. The Joint Charity Commissioner vide order dated 14-3-2013 issued certain directions to the respondent No. 1 - Trust on the application Exh. 85. The respondent-trust moved the learned Principal District Judge and the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar has passed the impugned order dated 16-3-2013 in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013. This order is challenged in these petitions.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Navin Pahwa has submitted that the learned Principal District Judge is not competent to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for the reliefs prayed therein and the impugned order dated 16-3-2013 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 is wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that the said impugned order dated 16-3-2013 is non-est and contrary to the order dated 14-3-2013 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner below Application Exh. 85. Learned Advocate has vehemently argued the question of jurisdicti