CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the applicants before the Charity Commissioner, the 6th respondent herein. In the application presented under Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioners prayed for permission to file a suit to obtain appropriate directions in the interest of the Trust in which they were interested. The said Trust is known as 'shri Namdev Hari Mandir, Dharwad'. ( 2 ) THEIR mam allegations against the trustees were that the trustees had not collected therents properly from the tenaments belonging to the Trust; that the trustees refused to maintain proper accounts and refused to show the accounts at a general body meeting. Despite the irregularities having been brought to the notice of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, the accounts were audited over-night by the auditor of the Assistant Charity Commissioner's office pointing out the irregularities and bogus accounts were shown to him. Despite that, the assistant Charity Commissioner did not take cognizance. They also alleged that they were interested in the Trust and some of the trustees had been elected contrary to the customs and practice of the Trust. Therefore, the need to obtain appropriate directions from a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in order to see that the Trust functioned properly. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 5 arrayed as such filed their objections denying the averments. They specifically stated that the rents from the tenaments were not Rs. 2,000/- as asserted by the petitioners. But on the average they amounted to Rs. 140/- per month. They also submitted that they were elected as trustees as far back as in the year 1964 and a change report was filed in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and orders were obtained in Enquiry No. 440/1964 accepting the change. That order was passed on 10-2-1965 in the names of all the respondents and they were entered as new trustees. They further averred that the income of the Trust was Rs. 32/- per month which was hardly sufficient to meet the day today expenses of the Mandir and a sum of Rs. 60/- per year was also collected by way of donations and at times of marriages etc. They further averred that the income of the Trust was Rs. 32/- per month which was hardly sufficient to meet the day today expenses of the Mandir and a sum of Rs. 60/- per year was also collected by way of donations and at times of marriages etc. They averred that they had considerably improved the financial position of the Trust and that they had maintained the accounts in accordance with the directions issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, and had them audited as per the directions of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. They pointed out, they had no office clerk to maintain the regular accounts etc. , and the statements had been prepared by the trustees themselves. It was made known at the general body meeting of the members twice a year. They also alleged that the applicants had filed criminal complaints concocting certain falsehood to harass the respondents. ( 4 ) IN support of their respective contentions, the parties produced certain material. From the order of the Charity Commissioner, it is clear that one Mr. Kulkarni was appearing for the applicants before the Charity Commissioner and he had insisted that the books of accounts were required to be produced before the Charity commissioner so that the petitioners may examine the same. When the books were produced Mr. Kulkarni had retired from the case and one Mr. B. T. Karav had filed vakalath for the applicants- writ petitioners. When the Charity Commissioner asked him to go through the accounts, he declined to do so but wanted a decision on merits of the case. Accordingly, the Charity Commissioner proceeded to dispose of the case on merits formulating the following point for consideration. (1) Whether the applicants have been able to establish at least a prima facie case in order to seek permission to file a suit against the opponents? his answer to the question so formulated was in the negative. ( 5 ) IN the course of his order, he has pointed out, in addition to what has been stated above in regard to the account books not being inspected by the Counsel, that a look at the list of documents produced by the applicants at Ex. P. 12 made it clear that they had not produced even a scrap of paper asking the opponents i. e. , the trustees to show the account books at the general body meetings. P. 12 made it clear that they had not produced even a scrap of paper asking the opponents i. e. , the trustees to show the account books at the general body meetings. He also held that the applicants had not produced even the affidavits of some other persons besides themselves to support their case on the question of keeping of accounts and management of the funds of the Trust. He also reiterated the position that whatever was produced was also not looked into by the Counsel and no evidence whatsoever produced to show that the Trust had an income of Rs. 2,000/- per year. ( 6 ) IN contrast to that he went by the report of the auditor which certified that most of the receipts and payments entered in the account books were duly vouchered and there were no irregularities. As earlier noticed, the audit was done by an officer attached to the Assistant charity Commissioner. He weighed the want of sufficient material from the side of the applicants with the material produced by the opponents and their contention that they were elected in 1964 and that was approved by the Assistant Charity commissioner which made it regular and it would not clothe the applicants with right to question their trusteeship as late as in the year 1978. They relied upon the accounts produced together with certain papers, as the matter had been audited by an officer of the Charity commissioner's office at a lower level and having regard to the fact that the trustees had been recognised. The Charity Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the application and no prima facie case was made out; that there mismanagement by the respondents. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by that, an appeal was filed in Appeal No. 264/1979 before the Karnataka appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal after hearing the Counsel on both side by a small criptic order, dismissed the appeal on the same grounds. Therefore, the present writ petition. ( 8 ) IN this writ petition Mr. R. U. Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has stated that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had failed to apply his mind and failed to consider the material placed before him; and as such the order called for interference by this court and that it be set aside. ( 8 ) IN this writ petition Mr. R. U. Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has stated that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had failed to apply his mind and failed to consider the material placed before him; and as such the order called for interference by this court and that it be set aside. He relied upon the decision of the learned single Judge of this court in the case of Karnataka Patrika Private ltd. and Others v R. K. Joshi and Others, ILR 1979 (1) Karnataka 108. In that case the learned single Judge examined the scope of Section 51 of the Act and held that the three necessary ingredients which were implicit in Section 51 of the Act were that the applicants seeking permission to file a suit had a prima facie interest in the Trust, there was prima facie breach of trust by those who were in-charge of the trust and there were prima facie grounds for the relief prayed for. The function of the Charity Commissioner was also held to be judicial and quasi-judicial in addition to being administrative functions. He further held that an order that has civil consequences did not necessarily require to be interfered with if the High Court was satisfied that it did not occasion substantial injury and failure of justice on the facts of that case. ( 9 ) IN this case, question of there having been no opportunity to the applicants does not arise. There has been no violation of rules of natural justice. The complaint is that the material produced by them was not considered. While stating the facts and contentions before the charity Commissioner, I have pointed out that material had been considered but not necessarily in the manner in which the applicants wanted them considered. Considering the material as at ex. 12 he found that there was no evidence therein which went to show that the accounts were not shown at the general body meeting. There were no affidavits filed independently of themselves to support their case. He weighed that against the material produced by the trustees, respondents 1 to 5 here. It is on consideration of the case made out by both the sides, he reached the conclusion that a prima facie case had not been made. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the assertion of Mr. He weighed that against the material produced by the trustees, respondents 1 to 5 here. It is on consideration of the case made out by both the sides, he reached the conclusion that a prima facie case had not been made. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the assertion of Mr. Goulay that there had been no application of mind nor consideration of the material placed before respondent-6. ( 10 ) THE function of the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the Act is very similar to the function of the Advocate General under Section 90 of the C. P. C. It is essentially a discretionary power coupled with duty. If the facts recorded as findings are to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution it would create undue hardship to all Tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities who have to determine those facts and arrive at the findings. Therefore, the self-imposed restriction by the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution not to act as further Courts of Appeal and disturb the findings recorded by the inferior Tribunals. There may be cases where a discretion exercised may be unjust but it is not the High Court which exercises the discretion. If the Charity Commissioner exercised the discretion and gave reasons as to why he has exercised the discretion in a particular manner, this Court will not interfere with such discretion exercised on further consideration of material placed before the inferior tribunal or Authority. ( 11 ) I do not see any merit in this petition and therefore I reject the same. There will be no order as to costs. ( 12 ) ORDER accordingly. Writ Petition rejected. --- *** --- .