JUDGMENT:- Both these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself in view of the orders dated 1510-2003 of this Court. In Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003, the challenge is to the order dated 249-2003 passed by Respondent No.1 - Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, below Exhs.4 and 10 in Appeal No.35 of 2003 whereby the Joint Charity Commissioner has while promising to make sincere attempts to dispose of the appeal itself on or before 12-11-2003, stayed the directions issued under Section 41-A of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to hold elections of Trust on 28-9-2003. The Appeal No.35 of 2003 has been filed by Respondent No.2 in this writ petition. The said appeal is against the order dated 12-9-2003 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha, in Enquiry No.164 of 2003. By said judgment dated 12-9-2003, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, directed Shri. Nawalchand Champalal Choudhari - petitioner No.1 herein to hold fresh elections of Managing Committee, within a period of two months and then to file Change Report as per Section 22 of the Act. Respondent No.2 in this writ petition has filed Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 challenging the direction as contained in the order dated 12-9-2003 permitting Shri. Nawalchand Champalal Chaudhari to hold elections. The parties to both the petitions and their challenge is identical and as per joint request made by the parties, both these writ petitions are taken up together. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The matter was heard by me even earlier and then on 17-8-2005 as one of the learned counsel was indisposed, the matter was required to be adjourned. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 Shri. Rathi contends that he is founder member of Trust by name Selu Shikshan Mandai, Selu, District - Wardha. At present petitioner No.1 - Rathi, Respondent No.2 - Shri. Wandile and Respondent No.4 - Shri. Nawalchand Champalal Choudhary, are the only trustees admittedly alive. All other trustees have already expired. It is an admitted position that names of trustees have been taken on Schedule I in 1963-64 and thereafter no Change Reports were even filed. Shri. Rathi claims that he being Secretary of the Trust, called the meeting of Trustees and enrolled the members on 2-5-2003 and 9-5-2003. All other trustees have already expired. It is an admitted position that names of trustees have been taken on Schedule I in 1963-64 and thereafter no Change Reports were even filed. Shri. Rathi claims that he being Secretary of the Trust, called the meeting of Trustees and enrolled the members on 2-5-2003 and 9-5-2003. In the meeting dated 9-5-2003, trustees were elected and accordingly he filed Change Report No.181 of 2003. He also filed proceedings under Section 41-D of the Act against Shri. Wandile and Shri. Choudhary. He contends that to counter this move, Shri. Wandile and Shri. Choudhary filed Change Report Case Nos.149 of 2003 to 155 of 2003. They also filed application purported to be under Section 41-A of the Act and sought permission of the Assistant Charity Commissioner to hold election. In said application, Shri. Wandile and Shri. Choudhary admitted that various Change Reports submitted by them are liable to be rejected and they also prayed for dismissal of Change Report filed by Shri. Rathi. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha Region, Wardha, dismissed the Change Report No.181 of 2003 filed by Shri. Rathi on 12-9-2003. The said order has been challenged by Shri. Rathi by filing an appeal which is stated to be pending. He also dismissed Change Reports filed by Shri. Wandile and Shri. Choudhary on same day and granted permission to them to hold elections in Application Enquiry No.164 of 2003. Shri. Rathi states that he and one Shri. Mulchand Bhanmal Bhandari petitioner No.2 were not parties in Application Enquiry No.164 of 2003 and they were not served with a copy of any application. After order dated 12-9-2003 was passed, they came to know that list of members is produced by Shri. Wandile and Shri. Choudhary and that list has been ordered to be treated as valid list. It is stated that Assistant Charity Commissioner recognised Shri. Choudhary as Secretary as claimed by Shri. Choudhary. Shri. Choudhary claimed said status on the ground that on 2-91970 elections of Managing Committee were held. It is stated that a Change Report in this respect has been filed on 9-5-2003 vide Change Report No. 149 of 2003 and in it along with Shri. Choudhary, petitioner No.2 - Bhandari was shown elected as President and petitioner No.3 - Saraf was shown as elected Joint Secretary. 4. It is stated that a Change Report in this respect has been filed on 9-5-2003 vide Change Report No. 149 of 2003 and in it along with Shri. Choudhary, petitioner No.2 - Bhandari was shown elected as President and petitioner No.3 - Saraf was shown as elected Joint Secretary. 4. Shri. Rathi challenged the order dated 12-9-2003 in Enquiry No.181 of 2003 in Appeal No.35 of 2003 before Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. In said appeal, he also challenged the order dated 12-9-2003 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Change Report Enquiry No.164 of 2003. The Joint Charity Commissioner on 24-9-2003 passed the order as mentioned above. The said order of Joint Charity Commissioner dated 249-2003 staying the Elections dated 28-9-2003 has been challenged by Shri. Chaudhari and Shri. Wandile in Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003. They have contended that the direction to hold elections was issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha, under Section 41-A of the Act and Joint Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with those directions. This Court on 15-10-2003 granted ad interim relief in favour of the petitioners whereby the said order dated 24-9-2003 was stayed. It is the case of Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Wandile that after the stay was granted, they have conducted the elections as directed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and after completing the elections, they have also filed Change Report on 28-10-2003 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha, vide Change Report case No.193 of 2003. 5. In this background, I have heard Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Wandile i.e. petitioners in Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003, Shri. Khapre, learned counsel for Shri. Rathi and other petitioners in Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003. The respective counsel have also represented and argued for their clients who are party respondents in respective matters. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders have appeared for Joint Charity Commissioner and also Assistant Charity Commissioner. 6. On 31-7-2006, Shri. Rathi and others have filed their written notes of arguments in both the petitions through Shri. Khapre, learned counsel. Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel has filed written notes of arguments on behalf of Shri. Choudhary and Wandile in both the matters on 2-8-2006. 7. Insofar as Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 is concerned, Shri. Dharmadhikari has contended that the said writ petition needs to be allowed in terms of interim order dated 15-10-2003 passed therein. Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel has filed written notes of arguments on behalf of Shri. Choudhary and Wandile in both the matters on 2-8-2006. 7. Insofar as Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 is concerned, Shri. Dharmadhikari has contended that the said writ petition needs to be allowed in terms of interim order dated 15-10-2003 passed therein. It is argued that direction to hold elections has been issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in view of powers conferred upon him under Section 41A of the Act and said order dated 12-9-2003 passed in Enquiry No.164 of 2003 could not have been challenged by Shri. Rathi by filing appeal under Section 70 of the Act. It is contended that the Joint Charity Commissioner has by passing impugned order on 24-9-2003 postponed the elections and acted without jurisdiction. It is further argued that now Shri. Rathi and his group have got remedy of challenging the elections held on 26-10-2003 in Change Report No.193 of 2003. It is stated that in Change Report Case also the Assistant Charity Commissioner has already recorded evidence and recording of evidence of reporting trustees i.e. group represented by Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Wandile is already over. It is stated that the matter is now fixed for recording the evidence of group of Rathi. It is their contention that in this view of the matter, the only remedy now available to Shri. Rathi is to proceed further and to prosecute Change Report Case No.193 of 2003 to its logical conclusion. It is further contended that the order dated 12-9-2003 did not direct enrolling of new members but only directed holding of elections from amongst the members as on roll on the date of passing of that order. It is stated that Shri. Rathi is a Member of society and accordingly notice was issued to him to participate in the elections but he did not participate. 8. Insofar as Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 is concerned, Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel has contended that said writ petition has been filed after the elections were already held on 26-10-2003 and Change Report was filed on 28-10-2003. The arguments mentioned above are reproduced to contend that the order dated 12-9-2003 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha, had already exhausted itself when said writ petition was filed on 10-11-2003 and therefore writ petition is infructuous. The arguments mentioned above are reproduced to contend that the order dated 12-9-2003 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha, had already exhausted itself when said writ petition was filed on 10-11-2003 and therefore writ petition is infructuous. The argument again is that in any case such writ petition is not maintainable and Shri. Rathi and his group are now required to prosecute Change Report which has been filed on 28-10-2003. It is stated that Shri. Choudhary has been acting as Secretary right from the Elections held in 1970 and hence Assistant Charity Commissioner has rightly permitted him to hold the elections. It is further stated that Executive Committee has vide Resolution No.1(A) passed on 2-7-1978 resolved to cancel membership of those members who were absent on three consecutive meetings. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 - Rathi was in fact minor when the society was formed and could not have been a founder member. It is stated that in such circumstances, membership of petitioner in Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 has been rightly cancelled by Resolution dated 2-4-2003. It is further stated that voters list was published before holding elections on 26-10-2003 and- none of the petitioners (group of Shri. Rathi) raised any objection to that voters list. 9. Shri. Khapre, learned counsel representing Shri. Rathi and his group has contended that the order dated 12-9-2003 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha, in Enquiry Case No.164 of 2003 is itself without jurisdiction. He states that quorum for holding meeting of Executive Committee is seven and quorum of General Body Meeting is nine and there were only five General Body members alive at the relevant time. He, therefore, argues that neither Executive Committee meeting nor General Body meeting could be legally held in such circumstances. It is further argued that in such circumstances, the Assistant Charity Commissioner could not have under Section 41-A of the Act, constituted any ad-hoc body or trustee and the section only permits him to exercise administrative powers. Reliance has been placed on various cases to demonstrate that such exercise of power by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is without jurisdiction. It is contended that it is only Joint Charity Commissioner who can appoint necessary number of trustees under Section 47 of the Act. It is contended that the order dated 12-9-2003 permitting Shri. Choudhary and Wandile to hold elections is nullity. It is contended that it is only Joint Charity Commissioner who can appoint necessary number of trustees under Section 47 of the Act. It is contended that the order dated 12-9-2003 permitting Shri. Choudhary and Wandile to hold elections is nullity. It is further contended that under Section 79 of the Act, the Joint Charity Commissioner has been given powers of superintendence and hence while exercising those powers, he could have reviewed the order dated 12-9-2003 also. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, reported at AIR 1996 SC 11 , for this purpose. It is further stated that merely because elections have been held on 26-10-2003 and Change Report Case No.193 of 2003 is pending, Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 does not become infructuous and it is contended that holding of elections and its validity is dependent upon final adjudication in writ petition. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Naulakha Vs. Ujagar Singh, reported at AIR 2000 SC 3272 and G. Ramegowda Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported at AIR 1988 SC 897 , in support. It is contended that the appeal preferred by Shri. Rathi against the order dated 12-9-2003 is very much maintainable and Joint Charity Commissioner was not justified in postponing the elections during the pendency of said appeal. It is, therefore, contended that Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 should be dismissed and Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 should be allowed. 10. The scope of powers under Section 41-A of the Act is considered by this Court in the case of Lahudas Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 1993 Mh.L.J.1056. In the said case two members of Education Society - a public Trust, challenged final voters list on certain grounds and they stated that there were about 351 bogus members. The application moved by these two members before the Joint Charity Commissioner was under Section 41-A and 41-E of the Act. They sought direction to appoint Election Officer afresh and to hold elections on the basis of list containing only 483 voters. The application moved by these two members before the Joint Charity Commissioner was under Section 41-A and 41-E of the Act. They sought direction to appoint Election Officer afresh and to hold elections on the basis of list containing only 483 voters. The Joint Charity Commissioner, after hearing both sides, passed orders and directed the governing council of society to appoint Election Officer afresh under Bye-law No. 10 of the Societies Bye-laws and further directed the governing Council to rely on the voters list containing 483 names only. This Court has held that the order of Joint Charity Commissioner was liable to be quashed and set aside as he was not competent to investigate into the list during the election process and such investigation was beyond the scope of Section 41-A of the Act. This Court after considering the facts and arguments advanced before it in paragraph 20, has found that provisions of Section 41-A of the Act were added with effect from 1-8-1985 and the purpose of said section was to clothe authority with powers to prevent any loss being caused to a public trust or to prevent any public trust being mismanaged or to give directions to the trustees or any other person connected with the said public trust to administer it in accordance with the objects of said Trust or to see that the income of said public trust was duly accounted for. In paragraph 21, it is noticed that Section 41-A of the Act does not contemplate any adjudication and is, therefore, not subject to the Rules of natural justice and hence those directions are not appealable nor could be questioned under Section 72 of the Act. It has been held that those directions are not in the nature of quasi judicial directions. In paragraph 24, this Court has observed that elections are wholly beyond the purview of Section 41-A of the Act. Section 41-A of the Act has been held not to confer any power upon the Charity Commissioner or Joint Charity Commissioner to interfere with the process of election or to interfere in voting rights of any member. It has been observed that these are disputes which can be resolved by filing Change Reports after elections under Section 22 of the Act. 11. In Saram Bhimrao Vs. It has been observed that these are disputes which can be resolved by filing Change Reports after elections under Section 22 of the Act. 11. In Saram Bhimrao Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 548 , this Court has held that Section 41-A of the Act contemplates directions to the trustees only for proper administration of the Trust and for diligent performance of duties by trustees for attaining the objects and purpose for which the trust is established. It does not empower the Charity Commissioner to remove or appoint any new committee for administration of the Trust. The judgment of this Court in the case of Nathmal Kisanlal Goenka and another Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola, reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 303, has been mentioned in paragraph 11 of this judgment and it has been noticed that directions which could be issued under Section 41-A of the Act are only of administrative nature and they cannot relate to any quasi judicial power of Charity Commissioner. It has been held that quasi judicial proceedings would certainly require adherence to principles of natural justice. 12. Again in the case of Ramdas Shivaji Vs. Karuji Dago, reported at 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 304 : [2002(3) ALL MR 197], this Court has relied upon the above judgment and has held that the Assistant Charity Commissioner while deciding applications under Section 41-A of the Act has no authority to appoint ad-hoc committee to manage and administer the trust. Ramrao Shankarrao Kavthale Vs. Vijaykumar Bhuprao Shete, reported at 2004(2) ALL MR 211, is again the judgment of this Court which takes similar view. 13. Viewed in this background, the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 12-9-2003 questioned in Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 is unsustainable. It is clear that after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha, has found that after order dated 16-11-1963 in Change Report Enquiry No.176 of 1963, there are no subsequent changes. It has permitted applicant No.1 before it viz. Shri. Choudhary to hold elections and has directed present petitioner Shri. Rathi to co-operate with him in the matter. It found that though Shri. Rathi objected and contended that Shri. Choudhary was not Secretary, the records were admittedly in possession of Shri. Choudhary. It has permitted applicant No.1 before it viz. Shri. Choudhary to hold elections and has directed present petitioner Shri. Rathi to co-operate with him in the matter. It found that though Shri. Rathi objected and contended that Shri. Choudhary was not Secretary, the records were admittedly in possession of Shri. Choudhary. Hence, the Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed the application and issued directions to two applicants before it viz., Shri. Choudhary and Wandile to hold elections and directed Shri. Rathi to cooperate with them in the process. It is to be noticed that thus this is not a direction to all trustees of the Trust to hold elections. The direction is only to some of the trustees to hold fresh elections. On same day, said authority rejected Change Report Enquiry No.181 of 2003 filed by Shri. Rathi pointing out the elections held by him. Not only this, but again on the same day, the authority passed orders on Change Report Enquiry Case Nos. 149 of 2003 to 155 of 2003 filed by Shri. Choudhary himself and it is apparent that Shri. Choudhary accepted that those elections were not legal. It is in this background that exercise of powers to issue directions to hold elections needs to be viewed. 14. The facts disclosed earlier reveal that Shri. Rathi held the elections of Selu Shikshan Mandal on 9-5-2003 and submitted Change Report No.181 of 2003. He also filed proceedings under Section 41-D of the Act against Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Wandile. Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Wandile in turn filed Change Report Case No.149 of 2003 to 155 of 2003. Not only this but thereafter they filed one more application which came to be registered as Enquiry Case No.164 of 2003 and they accepted that the Change Reports filed by them are not legal and they sought directions from the Assistant Charity Commissioner to hold fresh elections. The facts also disclosed that after 1963 no change in relation to above Public Trust has at all been reported to the Officer of Charity Commissioner. 15. It appears that initially there were 11 trustees and out of them eight had already expired when the Assistant Charity Commissioner considered the application presented to him. The facts also disclosed that after 1963 no change in relation to above Public Trust has at all been reported to the Officer of Charity Commissioner. 15. It appears that initially there were 11 trustees and out of them eight had already expired when the Assistant Charity Commissioner considered the application presented to him. Even if argument of Shri. Choudhary that he was elected as Secretary on 3-9-1970 is accepted, his name was not reflected in Schedule I and as Secretary he did not file any Change Report in relation to that election. It is also apparent that though Shri. Rathi was recorded as the Secretary since 1963, he himself had not filed any Change Report thereafter. In this background, it is clear that two rival groups were trying to gain the power in the administration of Selu Shikshan Mandal. The controversy, therefore, could not have been resolved under Section 41-A by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 16. In Nathmal Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner (supra), this Court has observed that when there is negligence on the part of the management of trust, Charity Commissioner can under Section 41-A of the Act, issue directions to Trustees to hold elections in the interest of administration and proper management of the Trust. It has been held there that Assistant Charity Commissioner was justified in issuing said directions. It is to be noticed that in that case members of Society which were registered as public trust filed an application under Section 41-A of the Act, making grievance that no elections were held by the Trust for more than 10 years. It is, therefore, clear that the directions to hold elections were issued to the society or public trust itself and it was not a case involving dispute of present nature. This Court has found that the constitution of Berar General Education Society, Akola, required holding of elections every after three years and since 1980 there were no elections. It also found that in 1989, because of constant demand, election programme was declared but because of certain defects in election programme, again there were some litigation and no elections were held. Respondent No.2 - Secretary of Trust appeared before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Akola and stated that he was interested in holding elections as early as possible. It was found that effort of Respondent No.2 was to remain Secretary as long as possible. Respondent No.2 - Secretary of Trust appeared before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Akola and stated that he was interested in holding elections as early as possible. It was found that effort of Respondent No.2 was to remain Secretary as long as possible. It is, therefore, clear that the facts of said judgment are entirely different. Here, out of II trustees, only three were surviving and three were also not together. In reported judgment, directions have been given to entire trust itself and here directions have been given to one of the trustees and other person viz. Shri. Rathi has been directed to cooperate with him. This has been done after rejecting Change Reports filed by Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Rathi, both against each other. 17. The perusal of Constitution of Trust which is placed on record reveals that the Executive Committee has to consist of 12 members. The quorum for General Body meeting is stated to be 9 while the quorum for Executive Committee meeting is stated to be 7. In the facts of present case, it is, therefore, clear that there was no possibility of holding meeting of Executive Committee 'also. It is therefore clear that there was no Executive Committee at all to manage the affairs of Selu Shikshan Mandal. The Assistant Charity Commissioner has lost sight of the fact that there was no Executive Committee at all which could have taken care of his direction to hold elections. All these facts distinguished the above referred 1994 judgment which has been pressed by Shri. Choudhary and Wandile before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 18. In the facts of present case, it is clear that minimum number of trustees to administer the trust itself were not available. Both the groups made rival claims and enrolled members. In such circumstances, permitting anyone of them to hold elections will never result in resolving the issue once for all and dispute will continue. In fact both of them have held elections and filed change reports. If change reports furnished by them could not have been entertained, there is no point in asking anyone of them to hold elections again. The Assistant Charity Commissioner ought to have seen that provisions of Section 47 of the Act, have been placed in statute book to take care of such contingencies. If change reports furnished by them could not have been entertained, there is no point in asking anyone of them to hold elections again. The Assistant Charity Commissioner ought to have seen that provisions of Section 47 of the Act, have been placed in statute book to take care of such contingencies. Initially the matter should have been considered to fill in requisite number of vacancies so as to see that minimum members required to administer the trust become available and then only a direction under Section 41-A of the Act could have been issued to such trustees. It is only thereafter that the act of such trustees could have been treated as act of trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner has overlooked this aspect and also provisions of Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. This was not a case in which powers under Section 41-A of the Act could have been exercised. 19. I find that in such circumstances, the Assistant Charity Commissioner ought to have referred the matter to Charity Commissioner under Section 47 of the Act to appoint adequate number of trustees so that there is valid Executive Committee initially to take care of affairs of Selu Shikshan Mandal. As the quorum for meeting of Executive Committee as per constitution is 7 and three Executive members/trustees were already available, the Assistant Charity Commissioner ought to have seen that remaining four are first appointed under Section 47 of the Act. The task of holding elections could have been left to such Executive Committee thereafter. By leaving the task of holding elections only to one of the rival groups in the matter, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has added to the problems instead of resolving it. 20. This brings me to consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Wandile. According to them, as the elections have already been held on 26-10-2003 and Change Report proceedings are also filed, Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 has become infructuous. According to them, in view of same event, Rule needs to be made absolute in Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 in terms of interim order issued thereunder. However, I find that the order dated 12-9-2003 was very much challenged in Appeal No.35 of 2003 by Shri. Rathi. According to them, in view of same event, Rule needs to be made absolute in Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 in terms of interim order issued thereunder. However, I find that the order dated 12-9-2003 was very much challenged in Appeal No.35 of 2003 by Shri. Rathi. The orders obtained by Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Wandile in Writ Petition NoA106 of 2003 on 15-10-2003 are only ad interim orders and are subject to final adjudication in writ petition. The said orders do not attain finality and if ultimately it is found that Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 is itself liable to be dismissed or it cannot be allowed, the said orders cannot continue in operation. It is, therefore, apparent that its effect also, therefore, cannot continue in that eventuality. Hence, merely because the elections have been held on 26-10-2003, challenge in Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 is not rendered nugatory. Similarly, other writ petition cannot be allowed only on that account. 21. In this respect reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of G. Ramegowda Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (supra), which considers the issue of dependant order. In paragraph 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that during the pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the order of High Court condoning delay even though High Court has disposed of the appeal on merits finally, it does not render the appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court redundant. It has found that the final order passed by the High Court is dependant upon the orders of Supreme Court in the matter of condonation of delay. If the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, the further exercise made in the meanwhile by the High Court, finally disposing of the appeal, is rendered nugatory. The said principle will also govern the situation at hand. When the order of 12-9-2003 is itself found to be unsustainable, it is apparent that elections held in pursuance thereof on 26-10-2003 are not sustainable. The filing of Change Report on 28-10-2003 in relation to that election is, therefore, of no consequence. Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 has been filed only to see that orders dated 129-2003 are implemented. When said orders are found to be unsustainable, it is apparent that Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 cannot be allowed and is liable to be dismissed. 22. Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 has been filed only to see that orders dated 129-2003 are implemented. When said orders are found to be unsustainable, it is apparent that Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 cannot be allowed and is liable to be dismissed. 22. It is to be noted that the affairs of Selu Shikshan Mandal are presently being managed by the trustees/Executive Committee which has been elected on 26-10-2003 as alleged by Shri. Choudhary and Shri. Wandile. In view of today's judgment, the said management cannot be said to be legal and proper. However, at the same time, a vacuum cannot be created and the affairs of the society must be allowed to be managed smoothly. Hence, while allowing Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 and issuing directions to the parties to approach the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 47 of the Act for appointment of trustees in the matter, I permit the existing trustees to continue to manage the affairs of the Trust as ad-hoc body till the Joint Charity Commissioner appoints other trustees so as to enable the Executive Committee of Selu Shikshan Mandai to meet and to prosecute business in the matter. After the Joint Charity Commissioner nominates requisite number of trustees on Executive Committee of Selu Shikshan Mandai, said Committee shall take appropriate decision and hold elections for constitution of Executive Committee as per the constitution of Selu Shikshan Mandal. Till then, the existing Managing Committee shall continue to function as ad-hoc committee and shall not take any major policy decision and shall look after only day-to-day affairs. 23. The Joint Charity Commissioner shall complete the action of nominating requisite number of members on the Executive Committee of Selu Shikshan Mandal as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to him. The Executive Committee so constituted shall thereafter meet and chalk out Election Programme and arrange to hold elections as per Constitution. The Executive Committee shall complete said exercise within a further period of three months thereafter. 24. Thus rule is made absolute in Writ Petition No.4473 of 2003 with above directions. Writ Petition No.4106 of 2003 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly