The Charity Commissioner must ensure public consultation through proper notice in trustee appointment inquiries under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati on an application under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 filed by the appellants.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :

The Anand Club Pandharkawada is a public trust duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and also under the Societies Registration Act. The said Trust had been formed with the object of promotion and encouragement of all indoor and outdoor games, tournaments and exhibition matches.

3. As per the contention of the appellants the original record including the resolution which was passed for inducting the present proposed trustees as members of the said Trust was destroyed in rainstorm on 13.4.2013. The appellant No.1 could not prove the membership of all the appellants before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Hence, appellants have filed applications under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act for including their names on M.P.T. register. Said application was rejected. It is further contention of the appellants that they are members of the said Trust as they were inducted by founder members. The change report was also submitted but their names are not appearing on M.P.T. register. The appellants are the persons who are carrying out the affairs of the said Trust. Now, the recorded trustees are not alive, therefore, they had filed application under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act for recording them as trustees. The respondent Joint Charity Commissioner on 13.6.2017 issued public notice inviting objections and for inviting the applications from interested persons to be appointed as trustees. The respondent Joint Charity Commissioner had also called Police report in respect of the suitability of the proposed trustees. However, in response to the public notice nobody has raised the objection. The Joint Charity Commissioner had considered the application, however observed that the evidence of the applicant does not inspires confidence. The Police report called for suitability of the applicants for their appointment as trustees shows that the proposed trustees namely Vinod Chamediya, Namdev Jiddewar and Santosh Chintawar were charged for committing offence under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Gambling Act. Similarly, the offence under Section 324 is pending against the Gangareddy Bodhankar vide Crime No.17/2017 and rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal has been preferred by the appellants who claimed to be the persons interested in the Trust.

4. I have heard learned Advocate Mrs. Radhika Bajaj for the appellants as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Trupti Udeshi for the respondent.

5. I have also perused the application under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act which was moved as the change report was rejected. It is not disputed that the applications filed by the appellants to induct their names as trustees on P.T. Register under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act bearing Inquiry No.188/2013 was rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal. For this reason it is alleged that the situation of their being no trustee has arisen.

6. The change report is mainly rejected on the ground that the appellants could not prove that there shall be election every year and the life members and