( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order made in Revision Petition no. 21 of 1971, on 23-7-1971 by the Charity Commissioner, Karnatak Area, belgaum. That order has been made in the purported exercise of the power of the Charity Commissioner, under S. 7ua of the Bombay Public trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the 'act' ). ( 2 ) THE material facts which were not in dispute, are these: The lands in question belong to a public trust of Kahneshwar Temple in Kurahatti. The father of respondents 1 to 3, one Adiveyya, was in possession of them, ostensibly rendering certain services to the temple, it would appear that the father of the petitioners herein, one Hanamappa by name, obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs. 2,524 against the said Adiveyya, in L. C. Suit No. 19 of 1927. He brought to sale those two lands belonging to, the trust for the recovery of the said sum in Darkhast No. 733 of 1933. In the sale held, the said Hanamappa purchased only the life interest of Adiveyya, specifically. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioners could not acquire any interest in the said properties after the death of Adiveyya on 23-5-1970. Subsequent to the purchase by Hanamappa, the Act of 1950 came into force. On the death of Hanamappa, the petitioners filed an application under S. 18 of the Act on 3-3-1958, requesting for the registration of these lands as the property of the Public Trust and constituting them as the trustees. There was also a request for the registration of the Kalmeshwar temple as a Public Trust under S. 20 of that Act. The application in question was No. 68 of 1958. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, after holding an enquiry into the matter, granted the application and directed registration accordingly. It is relevant to note that during the hearing of the said application neither respondents 1 to 3 nor their father had been impleaded as parties. It is seen from the record, that there was not even a public notice of the lodging of such an application by the petitioners. This registration was effected on 18-4-1958. ( 3 ) AFTER the death of Adiveyya on 23-5-1970, respondents 1 to 3, ostensibly with a view to assert their rights, filed CS. No. 48/1970 on 23-3- 1970. It is seen from the record, that there was not even a public notice of the lodging of such an application by the petitioners. This registration was effected on 18-4-1958. ( 3 ) AFTER the death of Adiveyya on 23-5-1970, respondents 1 to 3, ostensibly with a view to assert their rights, filed CS. No. 48/1970 on 23-3- 1970. As to the fate of this suit, there is no material on record. However, on 27-1-1970, the respondents 1 to 3 filed an application under S. 22 of the act, requesting that a change be recorded recognising them as the Trustees. The Assistant Charity Commissioner granted that application and directed that the change be) made, by an order made on 5-2-1971. ( 4 ) TO the said proceedings, the petitioners had been made parties. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners presented an appeal before the Charity Commissioner in Appeal No. 3 of 1971. The said appeal was accepted by the Charity Commr. made u/s. 22 of the Act, and the order was set aside. In the course of the said order, the Charity Commr. expressed an opinion that a revision was the more appropriate remedy for respondents 1 to 3, and that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for a 'change' under S. 22 of the Act. It is relevant however to refer to an observation made by the Charity Commissioner in the aforesaid order, whereby it is clear that an argument in regard to the jurisdiction exercisable under S. 70a had been pressed for consideration on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The argument was that it was open to the Charity Commissioner to convert the proceeding into one under S. 70a of the Act and deal with the proceedings before the Asst. Charity Commissioner in exercise of the power of revision conferred under that Section. Be that as it may, respondents 1 to 3 preferred revision petition under S. 70a of the Act in Revision Petition No. 21 of 1971. The said petition was allowed by the Charity Commissioner and the order of registration of the Trust made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, in enquiry No. 68 of 1958, on 18-4-1958, was annulled. He however ordered a remit of the matter to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, for further enquiry and disposal. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court. He however ordered a remit of the matter to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, for further enquiry and disposal. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have approached this Court. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, several contentions were urged. I propose to consider them. I shall first lake up two contentions, which are of a minor character, in my opinion, before adverting to the main contention in the case. ( 6 ) THE order of the Charity Commissioner in Appeal No. 3 of 1971, was severely criticised in so far as it related to the observation or the expression of opinion by him, to the effect that revision was a more appropriate remedy for respondents 1 to 3. The argument is that it was no part of the duty of the Charity Commissioner to tender advice to a party. Assuming that such a criticism could be justly levelled against the Charity commissioner, the opinion found fault with would not per se render the subsequent order made in the exercise of his revisional power under S. 70a of the Act, invalid. Even otherwise, I am of the view that such a criticism is not clearly justified. It is seen from the order in question that the Charity commissioner has not, in any manner, referred to the order which could be so revised under S. 70a of the Act. It is also seen that an argument had been expressly raised on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. requesting the Commissioner to act in the exercise of his revisional power under s. 70a of the Act. All these circumstances taken together would clearly show that the observations in question made by the Charity Commissioner did not suffer in any manner from want of good faith as implied. I need say no more about this aspect. ( 7 ) THE next contention is that the order sought to be revised had been made as far back as on 18-4-1958, and it was not open to revision after a lapse of nearly 13 years. Further, although there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of the revisional power under S. 70a of the Act, it was the duty of the parties to have moved the authorities within a reasonable time after the passing of such an order. Further, although there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of the revisional power under S. 70a of the Act, it was the duty of the parties to have moved the authorities within a reasonable time after the passing of such an order. In these circumstances, such a belated exercise of the revisional power must not be upheld. I am not inclined to accept this submission. It is seen that in the earlier proceedings, neither Adiveyya nor his sons had been made parties, nor was there any public notice of those proceedings as observed by the charity Commissioner in the order impugned herein. It is further to be remembered that so long as the sale in favour of Hanamappa stood, effective during the life time of Adiveyya, neither Adiveyya nor his sons could be said to be directly concerned with the properties which had been made the subject master of the Trust at the instance of the petitioners. If one has regard for all these circumstances, not the least important of which was the wholly ex parte proceedings taken by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, i do not think that this delay should be held up against respondents 1 to 3, in the matter of securing relief under S. 70a of the Act. Nor for that matter, could it be held up against the Charity Commissioner as a bar to the exercise of revisional power clearly vested in him under the statute. ( 8 ) I now turn to the main contention. The contention is that in view of the bar enacted under S. 70a of the Act, it would not be open to the Charity commissioner to haye revised the order made on 18-4-1958 under S. 20 of the Act. The specific argument is that so long as an order made under s. 20 of the Act was appealable, and had not been appealed against by respondents 1 to 3 or Adiveyva, the provisions of Sec. 70a (1) would not be available to the Charity Commissioner to revise such an order. The further argument is that the earlier order of change under S. 22 of the Act, having been appealed against and that appeal haying been allowed, the bar enacted under S. 70a (2) (b) would dearly become operative. The further argument is that the earlier order of change under S. 22 of the Act, having been appealed against and that appeal haying been allowed, the bar enacted under S. 70a (2) (b) would dearly become operative. ( 9 ) ON a careful analysis of the sub-section relied on by Sri K. S. Savanur, the learned Counsel. I am clearly of opinion that his contention cannot be upheld. Section 70a reads :"70a, (1): The Charitv Commissioner may in any of the cases mentioned in S. 70, call for and examine the record and proceedings of such case before any Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of any finding or order recorded or passed by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner and may either annul reverse, modify or confirm the said finding or order or may direct the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner to make further inquiry or take such additional evidence as he may think necessary or he may himself take such additional evidence; provided that the Charity Commissioner shall not record or pass any order without giving the party affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. (2) Nothing in sub-sec (1) shall entitle the Charity Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any case, (a) during the period in which an appeal under S. 70 can lie against any finding recorded by the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner in such case, or (b) in which an order has been passed either in an appeal made under S. 70 or on an application under Section 72. " ( 10 ) IT is seen from sub-sec. (1) of the above section, that in any of the cases referred to under S. 70 of the Act, it would be open to the Charity commissioner to call for and examine the record and the proceedings before any Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of any finding or order recorded or passed. He is also empowered after such examination to annul, reverse, modify or confirm any finding or order of those authorities. The matters which have been referred to under S. 70, inter alia, relate to a finding or order, if any, under S. 20 or S. 22. Sub-clause (a) of sub-sec. He is also empowered after such examination to annul, reverse, modify or confirm any finding or order of those authorities. The matters which have been referred to under S. 70, inter alia, relate to a finding or order, if any, under S. 20 or S. 22. Sub-clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 70a provides that in any matter which is appealable under S. 70 of the Act, the power under sub-sec. (1) thereof should not be exercised during the period prescribed for such an appeal. In other words, the power is exercisable once the period of limitation has expired and no appeal has been presented against any order made under Ss. 20 or 22 and other provisions referred to under S. 70. Sub-clause (b) of that sub-section clearly provides that if an order had been made in any appeal preferred under S. 70 or an application under S. 72, the power exercisable by the Charity Commissioner under sub-sec. (1) would become unavailable. ( 11 ) KEEPING these principles in view, I shall proceed to examine the facts present in the instant case. It is no doubt true that an order under S. 22 made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner had been appealed against by the petitioners and allowed. The bar under sub-clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) of the above section would certainly be effective in regard to the order made in such an appeal. But the impugned order, which was one made in revision, did not at all seek to affect the appellate order arising from a proceeding under S. 22 of the Act. Hence reliance placed on the said provision is clearly misconceived. In so far as sub-clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 70a is concerned, it is clear that the order made under S. 20 of the Act, which is the order that has been revised by the Charity Commissioner, had not been appealed against at all. Moreover, it is obvious that the period during which an appeal could have been presented by any one aggrieved by such order, had expired. Under these circumstances, it was dearly open to the Charity Commissioner to have exercised his jurisdiction under sub-sec. (1) of S. 70a of the Act, and the bar enacted in sub-sec. (2) of S. 70a of the Act could not have come in the way of such exercise. Under these circumstances, it was dearly open to the Charity Commissioner to have exercised his jurisdiction under sub-sec. (1) of S. 70a of the Act, and the bar enacted in sub-sec. (2) of S. 70a of the Act could not have come in the way of such exercise. Hence this contention of the petitioners must also fail. No other contention is urged. ( 12 ) THE result is, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .