JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, "the Act". The trust is known by the name of "Shree Sharada Sewa Niketan, Nagpur". The trust was formed in the year 1963 and, it has been stated that under a registered deed of gift executed on 21st December, 1964, 1 acre of land, out of Khasra Nos. 56, 57 and 65, falling within the limits of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, came to be vested in the trustees for the specific purpose of advancing the development of women and children. 3. Originally there were 12 trustees, out of whom, it is common ground, 3 expired. 9 trustees then remained and it has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that even out of these, 6 women trustees had communicated an intention not to be associated in any manner with the aforesaid trust. From 1963 until 1990, no meeting were held and no accounts had been made up; at least, that is the allegation which has been made. At this stage, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the correctness of that allegation. It would suffice to state that an order came to be passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, suspending all the remaining trustees in exercise of powers conferred by section 41-D of the Act. The proceedings before the Charity Commissioner were set in motion upon a joint complaint which was filed by 3 persons; 2 of the complainants were spouses of petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 respectively. The Inspector, who conducted an investigation, took letters of consent from certain persons, who stated that they were willing to act on a body of "fit persons" as ad hoc trustees on a temporary arrangement until the main inquiry was concluded. 4. On 26th April, 2000, the four petitioners together with one Mrs. Sheela Manwatkar and Mrs. Vijaya Chavan, came to be appointed as "fit persons" as a purely temporary arrangement. That order was challenged before this Court in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was disposed of on 24th August, 2000. 4. On 26th April, 2000, the four petitioners together with one Mrs. Sheela Manwatkar and Mrs. Vijaya Chavan, came to be appointed as "fit persons" as a purely temporary arrangement. That order was challenged before this Court in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was disposed of on 24th August, 2000. This Court remanded the matter back to the Joint Charity Commissioner and one of the issues, which the authority was required to determine was whether it would be appropriate to appoint as fit persons, those, who are not connected with the affairs of the trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner was directed to record a clear finding in regard to each person named in the body of fit persons on the question as to whether it was in the interest of the trust to allow these persons to remain on the body of fit persons as ad hoc trustees. 5. In pursuance of the order of remand, the Joint Charity Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 13th March, 2002. The Joint Charity Commissioner has decided to retain only 2 out of the 6 persons, who were appointed originally on 26th April, 2000, as ad hoc trustees for the interim period. These two persons are respectively Mrs. Sheela Manwatkar and Mrs. Vijaya Chavan. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 have not been continued any further. In so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 respectively are concerned, the Joint Charity Commissioner was of the view that it would not be appropriate to continue these persons, since these two petitioners are the wives of the two complainants, who had moved the Charity Commissioner originally. Neither of the petitioners is a member of the trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner has noted that petitioner Nos. 1 4 had submitted a proposal to the Nagpur Improvement Trust for carrying out certain construction on the property of the trust and the Charity Commissioner was of the view that as purely ad hoc trustees appointed as an interim arrangement, it was improper for these persons to carry out construction on the property belonging to the trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner held that there is an element of vested interest involved in the matter and that in any event it was, therefore, not appropriate to continue petitioner Nos. 1 4 as interim or ad hoc trustees. In so far as petitioner Nos. The Joint Charity Commissioner held that there is an element of vested interest involved in the matter and that in any event it was, therefore, not appropriate to continue petitioner Nos. 1 4 as interim or ad hoc trustees. In so far as petitioner Nos. 2 3 are concerned, the Joint Charity Commissioner has fairly stated that there was no allegation of any kind against these two persons. Moreover, it had also been urged before the Joint Charity Commissioner that certain welfare activities were being carried on by these persons after they were appointed as ad hoc trustees on 26th April, 2000, such as vocational activities for women and that the arrears of taxes, which had to be paid by the trust, had been partly paid. However, the only reason, which has weighed with the Joint Charity Commissioner in declining to appoint these two persons, viz. petitioner Nos. 2 3, is that they do not reside in the proximity of the original office of the trust and that, therefore, it would not be possible for them to conveniently access the area where the land belonging to the trust is situated. 6. The Joint Charity Commissioner has then directed that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 shall stand appointed as members of the ad hoc body subject to various conditions which have been imposed by the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. These restrictions include a direction that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 shall not deal with the immoveable property; they shall not take major policy decisions; and that they shall not spend more than an amount of Rs. 1,000/- without the permission of the authority. The Court has been informed that the main inquiry which is pending under section 41-D of the Act, has been expedited in pursuance of the order of this Court and it now has to be concluded on or before 17th August, 2002. The Charity Commissioner has made a note of this in the concluding part of the impugned order. 7. In so far as the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is concerned, the Charity Commissioner was of the view that as between the petitioners and the aforesaid respondents it was appropriate to appoint respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as members of the ad hoc body. Respondent Nos. 7. In so far as the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is concerned, the Charity Commissioner was of the view that as between the petitioners and the aforesaid respondents it was appropriate to appoint respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as members of the ad hoc body. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 claim to be ordinary members of the trust and it is their case that on 17th July, 1999, elections took place to the trust in pursuance whereof, they came to be appointed as trustees. A change report was submitted on 21st August, 1999 on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. No final orders have been passed by the Charity Commissioner on the change report which has been submitted by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the correctness of the claim which has been made on behalf of these respondents in regard to their membership of the trust and their election as trustees, must await a final determination therein. However, prima facie, the order of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner would suggest that it was considered appropriate to appoint respondents Nos. 2 to 5 since they are connected with the affairs of the trust. At present stage, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Charity Commissioner in so far as the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as trustees is concerned, particularly, having regard to the fact that there is no allegation individually against any of the aforesaid respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not placed any material adverse to the aforesaid respondents or made any submissions to that effect. The Joint Charity Commissioner noted that respondent No. 2 is a Senior Medical Practitioner and was of the view that having regard to her standing, both in the profession and in society, the affairs of the trust would be properly looked after by her. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are also found to be persons, who can be trusted to carry on the affairs of the trust as interim or ad hoc trustees having regard to their social standing and educational qualifications. This part of the order, in my view, does not call for any interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. No material to the contrary has been placed before the Court. 8. This part of the order, in my view, does not call for any interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. No material to the contrary has been placed before the Court. 8. That leaves the Court with the question as to whether petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 should be excluded from the body of ad hoc trustees. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5, the learned Counsel has fairly stated that these respondents have no objection if the Court is inclined to issue a direction to the effect that petitioner Nos. 2 3 should also be associated with the ad hoc body. Both these persons have been associated with the trust since 21st April, 2000. The order of the Joint Charity Commissioner takes due note of the submission that these two persons have been associated with the trust and that there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever against them. The Charity Commissioner was, however, of the view that petitioner Nos. 2 3 do not reside in the vicinity and that was the only reason for which, they have been excluded. There is merit in the contention which has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even on this issue, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner made a reference to the office of the trust, as being situated at a place where one of the former secretaries of the trust had her office. Be that as it may, since petitioner Nos. 2 3 have been associated with the trust for a period of two years and there is no allegation whatsoever against them or in regard to their fitness to serve on the ad hoc body or in regard to the manner in which they have performed in the past, there is no reason why they should be excluded. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Joint Charity Commissioner stands confirmed, save and except in respect of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. In so far as petitioner Nos. 2 3 are concerned, it is hereby directed that they shall also continue to act on the ad hoc body of the trustees constituted by the Joint Charity Commissioner subject to the same restrictions as contained in the order dated 13th March, 2002. 2 and 3. In so far as petitioner Nos. 2 3 are concerned, it is hereby directed that they shall also continue to act on the ad hoc body of the trustees constituted by the Joint Charity Commissioner subject to the same restrictions as contained in the order dated 13th March, 2002. The aforesaid two petitioners shall continue to act on the ad hoc body together with other persons including respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who have been appointed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. This writ petition shall stand accordingly disposed of in the light of the modification, as aforesaid of the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. 10. Before concluding it would be necessary to direct that the Joint Charity Commissioner shall take necessary steps to ensure that the inquiry under section 41-D of the Act, is concluded within the period fixed by this Court. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner shall also take due and necessary steps to pass orders on the change report dated 21st August, 1999 within the aforesaid period. Order accordingly. -----