Point of Law:
Clauses 18(e) and 18(g) provide that temple board to frame rules which may be sanctioned by the Charity Commissioner with or without modifications.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for setting aside judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Charity Commissioner. It is also prayed to stay election process to the Board, which is scheduled on 08.04.2020, as a consequences of setting aside of the impugned judgment and order of the Charity Commissioner.

4. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case are that Scheme Amendment Application No.5 of 2011 is moved by respondent No.2 before the Charity Commissioner. The said application was filed as, as per the Rules, sanction of the Charity Commissioner is necessary. The periodical amendments to the Election Rules are required to be sanctioned by the Charity Commissioner and accordingly, resolution No.9 dated 22.09.2019, which amended Rules for election, the same was to be implemented. By the impugned order, Charity Commissioner approved Rules as amended under resolution Nos.6 and 9 and at the same time, had also suggested certain amendments in the procedure. It is this order which is subject matter of challenged by the petitioners in their capacity as beneficiaries of the respondent-Trust.

5. The challenge to the impugned order is mainly on the ground that the Charity Commissioner has acted beyond his jurisdiction as he had no authority to deal with any amendment as the same would amount to amending scheme which is only the prerogative of the High Court.

5.1 It is also challenged on the ground that to bypass prevailing Rules for election and that too after such Rules have been examined by this Court in its decision in the year 2015, the respondent has persuaded the Charity Commissioner to take up an application for amendment of the Election Rules filed in the year 2011 and that application was decided in the year 2019. Therefore, when such Rules were expressly before the High Court when it passed order in MCA No.3154 of 2009, proposed Rules were already considered and thereafter, directions were given. The order, therefore, passed in 2011 application is overreaching the directions of the High Court.

5.2 It is also challenged on the ground that by the amendment approved by the Charity Commissioner, design of the respondent-Trust is to exclude more than 10,000/- eligible voters from participating in the election and therefore, by such interpretation, suitable to the present dispensation, the respondent, who belong to one particular section of the Trust, only wants to continuously be in power.

5.3 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the resolution is of 22.09.2010, for which application for approval of such resolution was given in the year 2011 and when this Court was considering MCA No.3154 of 2009, the said amendment and the application for approval was very much pending. In fact, such resolution was very much considered by this Court and this Court has clearly opined on the resolution and had also prescribed modalities. He drew attention specifically to para-48 of CAV judgment dated 09.01.2015 in MCA No.3154 of 2009. Relying on such observations, it is submitted that once the High Court has opined, the matter should have ended there and then. There as no cause of action for once again taking into consideration application dated 02.06.2011 being Scheme Modification Application No.5 of 2011.

5.4 It is submitted that even if the impugned order is considered independently, still, timing of taking up application dated 02.06.2011 for hearing and disposal after a long period suggests malafide intention to overrule the observations of this Court.

5.5 It is vehemently submitt