B. J. DIVAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are the Trustee and Manager respectively of a Public Trust which owns properties in Ahmedabad. The respondents herein had applied to the Charity Commissioner under sec. 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to file a suit under sec. 50 of the Act. That application was on the footing that the petitioners had committed breaches of trust and were acting against the interests of the trust by mismanaging and misapplying the trust funds and mal administering the trust property. The Joint Charity Commissioner held an inquiry into the matter heard both the parties and by his order dated August 5 1969 he dismissed the application with costs. Against this order of the Joint Charity Commissioner the respondents filed an appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of sec. 51 (2) of the Act. On behalf of the petitioners a contention was raised before the Revenue Tribunal that since the legal proceedings in the shape of an appeal before the Revenue Tribunal raised a question affecting the Public Religious or Charitable purpose the Tribunal could not proceed to determine such question until after notice had been given to the Charity Commissioner. That objection was turned down. There was also an application to join the Charity Commissioner as a party to the appeal and that application was also rejected. It is against this decision of the Revenue Tribunal rejecting this application to join the Charity Commissioner that the present Special Civil Application under Art. 227 has been filed. ( 2 ) SEC. 56b of the Act provides56 (1) In any suit or legal proceedings in which it appears to the court that any question affecting a public religious or charitable purpose is involved the court shall not proceed to determine such question until after notice has been given to the Charity Commissioner. (3) In this section Court shall mean any Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Gujarat. MR. B. R. Shah for the petitioners contends that the words Civil Court mean a court where civil proceedings are entertained. Now it must be borne in mind that there are three broad categories of all courts viz. (3) In this section Court shall mean any Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Gujarat. MR. B. R. Shah for the petitioners contends that the words Civil Court mean a court where civil proceedings are entertained. Now it must be borne in mind that there are three broad categories of all courts viz. Revenue Courts Criminal Courts and civil Courts but there is a common feature of all courts which must be possessed before the designation Court can be applied to any Tribunal or body and that essential characteristic is the adjudicatory process where the court concerned will adjudicate upon a particular dispute. In deciding whether the sanction to prosecute a particular suit under sec. 50 of the Act should or should not be granted the Charity Commissioner does not adjudicate upon any dispute; and it is for him after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit to give his consent to the suit being filed. This function is purely administrative and in these proceedings under sec. 51 the Charity Commissioner cannot be said to adjudicate upon any dispute between the parties. Looking to the interests of the charity as a whole he has to decide whether to give his consent to the filing of a suit for which an application has been filed; and whether it is in the interests of charity to grant such consent or not. In doing so he does not adjudicate upon any dispute. The appeal under sec. 51 (2) lies to the Revenue Tribunal against the decision of the Charity Commissioner refusing to give his consent to the institution of a suit; and the scope of the powers of the Revenue Tribunal cannot be wider than the scope of the authority of the first instance i. e. the Charity Commissioner. Surely the Revenue Tribunal exercising the appellate powers under sec. 51 (2) can exercise the same powers as the Charity Commissioner but it is not open to the Revenue Tribunal functioning under sec. 51 (2) to adjudicate upon any dispute or to decide any question either of fact or of law while deciding the appeal under sec. 51 (2 ). Under these circumstances the Revenue Tribunal while functioning under sec. 51 (2) cannot be said to be a court much less a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. I may point out that under the definition sec. 51 (2 ). Under these circumstances the Revenue Tribunal while functioning under sec. 51 (2) cannot be said to be a court much less a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. I may point out that under the definition sec. 2 (4) Court means in the Greater Bombay the City Civil Court and elsewhere the District Court. Therefore if the special definition under sec. 56b (3) had not been there the scope of sec. 56b would have been confined only to suits or legal proceedings in Bombay City Civil Court or the District Court. In order to see that in all suits and legal proceedings in each and every civil Court of competent jurisdiction where any question affecting public religious or charitable purpose is involved. a civil Court of competent jurisdiction whether functioning under the Bombay Civil Courts Act or under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act or under the Rent Control Act or any other similar legislation setting up a civil Court will have to give notice to the Charity Commissioner about the pendency of such suit or proceeding that sec. 56b has been enacted. But if a forum before which or the Tribunal before which a legal proceeding is pending is not a court much less a civil Court of competent jurisdiction there is no question of any notice having to be given to the Charity Commissioner even though there may be a legal proceeding. ( 3 ) CONSIDERING the matter from still another angle it seems to me that the Charity Commissioner is totally redundant so far as the appellate proceeding under sec. 51 (1) is concerned. The Charity Commissioner himself gave the decision and against his own decision the appeal is being carried to the Revenue Tribunal under sec. 51 (2 ). Under these circumstances it could never have been the intention of the Legislature that a notice about the appeal arising against its own decision should be required to be given to the Charity Commissioner by the Revenue Tribunal when the Revenue Tribunal is deciding the appeal. ( 4 ) UNDER these circumstances the conclusion of the Revenue Tribunal on the application filed by the petitioner before it was correct. This Special Civil Application therefore fails and rule is discharged. The petitioners to pay personally the costs of the respondents of this Special Civil Application. The Charity Commissioners costs to come out of the trust fund. ( 4 ) UNDER these circumstances the conclusion of the Revenue Tribunal on the application filed by the petitioner before it was correct. This Special Civil Application therefore fails and rule is discharged. The petitioners to pay personally the costs of the respondents of this Special Civil Application. The Charity Commissioners costs to come out of the trust fund. .