IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6779 of 2024 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6521 of 2024 ==========================================================

AJAYBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SHAH & ANR.

Versus LD. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AHMEDABAD & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

IN SCA/6779/2024 MR MIHIR JOSHI SR.ADV. WITH MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR (7150) & MR DHRUVEN SHAH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 for the Respondent(s) No.

1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR DC DAVE SR.ADV. WITH MR PARTH J BRAHMBHATT (9373) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 IN SCA/6521/2024 MR MI MERCHANT WITH MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR(7150) & MR DHRUVEN SHAH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No.

1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR DC DAVE SR.ADV. WITH MR PITAMBAR ABHICHANDANI for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 02/05/2024 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Parth Contractor, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.D.C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Parth Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 on caveat in Special Civil Application No.6779 of 2024 and Mr.M.I. Merchant, learned advocate appearing with Mr.Parth Contractor, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.D.C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Pitambar Abhichandani, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 on caveat in Special Civil Application No.6521 of 2024.

2. The petitioners herein in both the aforesaid petitions, have approached this Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad (for short, the “JCC”) in Revision Application Nos.2 of 2023 and 3 of 2023 preferred by the respondent nos.3 to 23 in which, the respondents therein, after more than 8 years and 34 years respectively, challenged the orders dated 18.10.1989 and 25.06.2018 passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner in Change Report Nos.818 of 1989 and 397 of 2015 (pursuant to which, the names of the present petitioners were reflected in the PTR upon their appointment as trustees of the respondent no.2 – Trust). By way of the impugned order dated 30.03.2024, the respondent no.1 rejected the said revision applications and also proceeded to cancel the Change Report Nos.818 of 1989 and 397 of 2015 dated 02.06.1989 and 24.03.2015, which was allowed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, being subject matter of challenge in the said revision applications.

3. Mr.Joshi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned order is passed under Section 70A of the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the “Act”). The Revision Applications are rejected on the ground of delay of 8 years and 34 years respectively. The change reports dated 02.06.1989 and 24.03.2015 are also cancelled and in view thereof, the impugned order is self-contradictory and without jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein are not required to be relegated to prefer an appeal under Section 72 of the Act.

3.1. Mr.Joshi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that while rejecting the revision applications, no notice is issued to the petitioners herein taking up suo-motu cognizance by the respondent no.1, invoking Section 70A of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section 70A of the Act and it is submitted that the procedure as provided under Section 70A is given a go-bye while passing the impugned order, cancelling change reports, by virtue of which, the petitioners herein are appointed as the trustees of the Trust since the year 1989 and 2015 respectively. Mr.Joshi, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on paragraph 5 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.D.N. Roy and S.K. Bannerjee and others vs. The state of Bihar and othe