G.B. SHAH, J.

1. Rule. Learned advocates waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

1.1 Heard learned senior advocates M/s Kamal B.Trivedi, Saurabh Soparkar, Bharat Naik and also learned advocate Mr.Bharat Rao for the petitioners as well as supported by newly appointed trustees of the trust who are on record, also heard learned senior advocates M/s S.N.Shelat, Mihir Thakor, Nirupam Nanavati and K.S.Nanavati for respondent No.1 as well as supported respondents on record.

1.2 The present petitions have been preferred challenging the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.24 of 2013 below Exh.5 dated 1.5.2013 whereby mandatory injunction has been granted against newly appointed trustees.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under.

2.1 Shri Khushaldas J.Mehta T.B.Hospital was originally registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1952 and thereafter the said Shri Khushaldas J.Mehta T.B.Hospital Trust has been registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as “the Act” for short) vide registration No.F/28 Bhavnagar by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Rajkot Area, Rajkot. The said hospital and the trust has been settled in Saurashtra region at Sihor for cure of T.B. in approximately 190 acres of land which has been donated by the then Maharaja of Bhavnagar State at the token of Rs.1/-. The activities of the trust became dormant from the year 2000 onwards.

2.2 It is alleged that all of a sudden, the trustees have decided to dispose off the trust and come into contact with respondent No.1 who is running self financed medical college at District Vadodara in the name and style of Sumandeep Vidhyapith which is deemed university. It is further alleged that it is very controversial trust which runs the college at Pipaliya, Taluka Vaghodia, District Vadodara.

2.3 The provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 have not been followed by the trustees and hence some of the beneficiaries and enlighten citizens of Bhavnagar had submitted the application under section 41-A of the Act and certain directions were passed by the Charity Commissioner and financial restrictions were imposed, but in spite of that, meetings were not convened and the trustees have surreptitiously entered into the agreement with respondent No.1 of Sumandeep Vidhyapith and appointed family members of respondent No.1.

3. Referring page Nos.39 to 120, it is alleged by the petitioners herein regarding controversial conduct of respondent No.1 related to merger of trust, permission granted to the medical college was cancelled and the trust property was mortgaged to the State Bank of India, Vadodara branch without seeking prior permission of the Charity Commissioner under section 36 of the Act.

3.1 Under the above circumstances, the enlighten citizens and public spirited citizens have taken recourse under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot after registering the scheme, necessary order has been passed and recorded prima facie subjective satisfaction as to why the scheme is required to be framed with regard to the above referred trust and after issuing the notice to all the trustees and after the advertisement in the local daily newspaper and following due procedure under the Act and giving all the opportunities to respondent No.1 and rest of the trustees who have also submitted the written submissions and after considering the entire record produced before the Joint Charity Commissioner by the proposers of the scheme, objectors to the scheme, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot passed the detailed order framing the scheme on 25.4.2013 and also framed the new constitution of the said trust.

3.2 On 26.4.2013, the newly appointed trustees i.e. petitioners and rest of the newly appoi