JUDGMENT :- Writ Petition No.2967 of 2005 is filed by the applicants before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati basically challenging the judgment dated 10-06-2005, delivered by him under Section 41-A of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. By the said judgment, the application preferred by them has been partly allowed and prayers made by them for direction not to admit member without adopting proper procedure, not to put subject of new life membership on agenda without consensus of Executive Committee, were rejected. The prayer only to the extent of directing the respondents i.e. the Trustees of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati to amend the constitution of trust has been allowed. The petitioners seek complete relief in this petition by modifying that order. The Trustees who are respondents in this Writ Petition, have also questioned the said order by filing Writ Petition No.4342/2005 to the extent of directing them to amend the constitution/scheme. However, during hearing Advocate Deo, who appears for the Trustees made clear that the Trustees are independently considering the issue of effecting amendment to the scheme on the lines as observed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, and, if Writ Petition No.2967/2005, is dismissed, the trustees will not be interested in pressing Writ Petition No.4342/2005. 2. The proceeding before respondent No.3 Joint Charity Commissioner, relates to public trust - Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati and the said trust is reportedly running 10 Colleges and 15 Schools in Amravati and Wardha Districts. The last election as per the applicants have been held on 15-12-2000, in which 9 persons were elected. It is admitted position, that at present the General Body consists of only 20 members and all of them are life members. The other categories are (1) Patrons, (2) Benefactors, (3) Sympathiser and (4) Ordinary. The Rules and Regulations of the above Trust vide Clause (a), prescribes that all the Office bearers of the Executive Committee have to be at least from Patrons or Life Members of the Society. It appears that the change has occurred in 2003 and that change was accepted on 5-7-2003 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The acceptance of the said change is questioned by the applicants by filing Revision No.3/2004, which is pending. It also appears that the applicants have also moved application under Section 41-D of the B.P.T. Act, on 4-2-2004 vide application No.7/2004, and that application is also pending. 3. The acceptance of the said change is questioned by the applicants by filing Revision No.3/2004, which is pending. It also appears that the applicants have also moved application under Section 41-D of the B.P.T. Act, on 4-2-2004 vide application No.7/2004, and that application is also pending. 3. In this background, the applicants on 3-9-2004 moved the present Application under section 41-A of the Act, before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati. They contended that they are the Trustees and are acting as members of the Executive Committee. They also stated that since the year 1999 no new person has been allowed to become life member of the society, and there was neither any discussion in the general body about this issue. They also pointed out that, the revision filed by them challenging the acceptance of change report and Section 41-D proceeding were pending. In this background they contended that the trustees have on 27-8-2004, issued notice for holding the Managing Committee/Executive Committee meeting of the trust on 4-9-2004 and vide subject No. 10, they wanted to enroll certain persons as life members. They contended that power to admit life member is not given to the Executive Committee and approval to membership and acceptance or admission of a person as a member, are two different things. They further stated that the subject of adding new members was not approved by the Executive Committee in its earlier meeting, and there was no notice for public at large. They further contended that the trust was not facing any financial crises so as to collect any funds by enrolling new members. In view of the pendency of the Revision under section 70-A and Application under section 41-D of the Act, they contended that such a decision could not have been taken without issuing public notice and without taking general body into confidence. The Joint Charity Commissioner heard them and found that the exercise could have been postponed for some time, and therefore, he passed interim order and directed the trustees not to take up the agenda no.10 in the meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled to be held on 4-9-2004. The Trustees accordingly canceled the said meeting. 4. It appears that when the proceedings were pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, trustees issued another notice on 25-2-2005 and vide subject no.11 again consideration of application for grant of membership was proposed. The Trustees accordingly canceled the said meeting. 4. It appears that when the proceedings were pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, trustees issued another notice on 25-2-2005 and vide subject no.11 again consideration of application for grant of membership was proposed. Meeting was to take place on 28-2-2005. It is the case of the applicants that, on 28-2-2005, when they went to attend the meting their signatures were obtained on attendance register and meeting was declared as over. They immediately lodged a complaint with Gadge Nagar Police Station on the same date at 9.45 a.m. And they also made grievance with the respondent No.3 Joint Charity Commissioner on 1-3-2005. Thereafter they also moved application under section 83 of the Act, against the trustees personally for taking action against them for violating the interim directions/restraining orders, issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner. They also sought stay to the execution and operation of the resolution passed by the Executive Committee meeting on 28-2-2005. 5. On 2-4-2005, the Trustees again issued another notice convening the meting on 6-4-2005 and decided to confirm the minutes of the earlier Executive Committee meeting dated 28-2-2005. Applicants lodged their objection in this respect, but, the meeting was held and the proceedings were confirmed. 6. The Trustees appeared before the respondent No.3 and contended that the reliefs as claimed could not have been granted under section 41-A. They admitted the status of the applicants as members of the Executive Committee. However, they stated that subject taken vide agenda no.10 was proper and also justified their further action. They stated that there was no provision to issue any public notice and the agenda can be fixed by the President of the Trust without any discussion in the general body. They relied upon Rule 22 of the Constitution to point out that powers to enroll members are vested with Executive Committee. 7. After hearing all concerned, and after considering the material produced, the Joint Charity Commissioner found that he could have exercised jurisdiction under Section 41A of the Act, and there was no power with the general body to approve or disapprove membership. He observed that the applicants have not established any violation of procedure or constitution and no right was vested in general body to authorize trustees to enroll them as members. He observed that the applicants have not established any violation of procedure or constitution and no right was vested in general body to authorize trustees to enroll them as members. However, he further observed that there were certain lacunae in the constitution like, there was no provisions for qualification of members, age limit, retirement limit etc., and he felt that the trust running several institutions It ought to have proper constitution in relation to a conditions of enrollment of members and their disqualification. He found that the general body was not given powers to take action on decision of the Executive Committee and hence he felt that it was necessary to issue directions to h trustees to amend the constitution. 8. Both the petitions were heard a together for admission and though the petitions were admitted, this Court did not grant any interim relief. The said refusal of interim relief was challenged by the applicants in L.P.A. No.27 of 2006, and the Division Bench held that no fresh elections should be held till the controversy involved in Writ Petitions is decided. The Division Bench therefore, requested the Single Judge to hear the petitions expeditiously. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions have been heard finally. 9. I have heard Senior Advocate Shri. K. H. Deshpande, with Advocate R. K. Deshpande and Advocate N. W. Sambre for applicants and Advocate Rohit Deo with Advocate R. D. Bhuibar, for Trustees and learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared for Joint Charity Commissioner in both the petitions. 10. Learned Senior Advocate has contended that the Joint Charity Commissioner has while passing the interim orders found that the proceedings challenging the acceptance of change report vide Revision No.3/2004 and independent application under section 41-D were pending and as such there was no urgency during the pendency of those proceedings to enroll new members. He pointed out that enrollment of new members is to have vital impact on constitution of General Body and hence the interim orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner was in aid of pending matters. He contends that while delivering final judgment, this aspect has been lost sight of. It is argued that the decision about expansion of Public Trust could have been taken only after taking into confidence all interested persons. He contends that while delivering final judgment, this aspect has been lost sight of. It is argued that the decision about expansion of Public Trust could have been taken only after taking into confidence all interested persons. It has been further argued that such powers are available to Joint Charity Commissioner under section 41-A of the Act, and attention is invited o Section 37 of the Act, read with Section 3 hereof to substantiate this stand. It is argued hat the Joint Charity Commissioner ought to 1ave continued interim orders and ought to 1ave further decided pending revision and application under section 41-D. It is further argued that the refusal of the Joint Charity Commissioner to stay the meeting dated 28-22005, is itself arbitrary and shows failure to exercise jurisdiction. The Joint Charity Commissioner ought to have first decided pending matters; ought to have directed the trust to hold general body meeting of original members; to hold elections of new trustees from existing members and thereafter such new body, ought to have been permitted to consider the further issues like enrollment of new members or the directions issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is contended that the existing trustees have decided to expand general body, obviously with a view to grab the administration of the trust and to establish their majority, and such an effort to high-jack the administration, could not have been allowed by the respondent No.3. 11. As against this, Advocate Rohit Deo, has stated that on 28-2-2005, 5 members have been enrolled as life members and on 186-2005, 8 persons have been enrolled as life members, thus total 13 new persons have been enrolled as life members so far, and out of them on 18-6-2005, 3 are inducted as members of the Executive Committee i.e. as trustees. He states that in so far as enrollment of 5 members as life members on 28-2-2005 is concerned, it is well within the knowledge of the applicants, but, they have not taken any steps to join them as parties. He points out that on 9-3-2005, when applicants sought stay of proceedings conducted on 28-2-2005, they could have joined 5 persons who are enrolled as life members. He further states that all these steps could have been taken even before Joint Charity Commissioner finally heard the matter, but no such steps were taken. He points out that on 9-3-2005, when applicants sought stay of proceedings conducted on 28-2-2005, they could have joined 5 persons who are enrolled as life members. He further states that all these steps could have been taken even before Joint Charity Commissioner finally heard the matter, but no such steps were taken. According to him the Joint Charity Commissioner could not have passed any orders, against these 5 persons without the applicants joining them as parties and behind their back, Section 41-A application was moved by the applicants only on 4 grounds and Joint Charity Commissioner has not stayed the meeting then scheduled on 4-9-2005, because of seriousness of challenges involved either under section 41-D proceedings or in Revision proceedings. He argues that Section 41-A was filed only on 4 grounds, and when Joint Charity Commissioner found that he could not have intervened in the matter, he has rightly refused to grant any relief in relation to enrollment of members. He takes the court through various observations made by the Joint Charity Commissioner in this respect, and contends that, the Joint Charity Commissioner was aware of the jurisdictional restrictions, and he therefore, did not grant any other relief to the applicants. He invites attention to the provisions of Section 50(j) and (o) of the Act, to state that the applicants could have filed a suit, if they wanted any change in the scheme or constitution. Attention is also invited by him to provisions of section 50-A to state that if Joint Charity Commissioner had reasons to believe that any alteration in existing scheme was warranted for proper management or administration of the trust, he could have passed those orders in the mode and manner prescribed under section 50-A. He argues that the provisions of Section 41-A are subject to provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, and therefore, what could have been done under section 50 or 50-A, cannot be done under section 41-A. He further states that section 37 also does not permit the Joint Charity Commissioner to exercise such powers under section 41-A and section 3 of the Act has no application in the matter. He has relied upon the various cases to substantiate his contentions. The cases are : (1) AIR 1976 SC 789 (Hukum Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors.); (2) AIR 1989 Bombay 274 (Dr. R. P. Kapoor & Ors. Vs. He has relied upon the various cases to substantiate his contentions. The cases are : (1) AIR 1976 SC 789 (Hukum Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors.); (2) AIR 1989 Bombay 274 (Dr. R. P. Kapoor & Ors. Vs. The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State & Ors.); (3) 1993 Mh.L.J. 1056 (Lahudas Sambhaji Karad Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.); (4) 1994 Mh.L.J. 303 (Nathumal Kisanlalji Goenka & Anr. Vs. Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Akola); (5) 1995(1) Mh.L.J. 906 (Taher Alimohahamad Poonawala Vs. Quizar Shaikh Nomanbhoy & Ors.); (6) 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 548 : [2002(3) ALL MR 555] (Asaram Bhimrao Shinde & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.); (7) 2003(3) GCD 1801 (Navinchandra Jasani Pravanchandra Jasani & Ors.); (8) 2000(7) SCC 521 (Council for Indian School Certificate Examination Vs. Isha Mittal & Anr.); (9) 1999(2) SCC 422 (Babu Verghese and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors.); (10) AIR 1984 SC 468 (Diwakar Shrivastava & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.). 12. Detailed reference to these cases will be made little later in the body of this judgment. By relying upon these cases, he has also contended that the direction to amend the scheme of constitution of the trust issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner are without jurisdiction, because of the limited jurisdiction available to the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41-A of the Act. He also pointed out that the general elections were held on 15-12-2000 and on 5-7-2003 only few vacancies which occurred due to resignation were filled in and that change report was accepted on 268-2003. He states that, Revision No.5/2004, filed by the applicants against this acceptance is pending. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case between Suryadevi Rai Vs. Ramchander Rai ( AIR 2003 SC 3044 ), to point out that this court in such circumstances cannot interfere in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction and to state that this Court cannot substitute is own view in the matter and jurisdiction of this Court is circumscribed by limitations laid down therein. 13. Ramchander Rai ( AIR 2003 SC 3044 ), to point out that this court in such circumstances cannot interfere in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction and to state that this Court cannot substitute is own view in the matter and jurisdiction of this Court is circumscribed by limitations laid down therein. 13. In reply, learned Senior Advocate, has contended that the case law on which reliance has been placed is not at all relevant in the present matter and the powers exercised by the Joint Charity Commissioner earlier while issuing the interim orders on 3-92004 were only administrative in nature and it is stated that the relief sought is only preventive relief to further the administration of the trust and no relief of removal of any enrolled members is sought. It is argued that no right has been conferred on any member admitted wrongfully by the trust. Lastly reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this court reported at 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 50 (Maha Pragya Vidhya Nidhi Foundation & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), to state that the powers exercised by the Joint Charity Commissioner under section 41-A are very wide and relief as claimed by the applicants could have been given to them. 14. The provisions of Section 41-A opens with words "Subject to the provisions of this Act..." It is thus clear that power given by Section 41-A to the Joint Charity Commissioner is subject to other provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. In other words the said provisions is subordinate to the other provisions thereof. The scheme of section 41A is considered by this court in its judgment in the case between - Nathumal Goenka and Asstt. Charity Commissioner (supra). There a grievance of petitioner before High Court was that though their prayer to hold elections was granted under section 41-A of the Act, prayer to hold elections by secret ballot was rejected. This Court has observed that Section 41-A does not contemplate any adjudication and is also not subject to Rules of natural justice. It found that in the facts of those cases, since 1980 no elections were held and from observations made in para nos.7 and 9, it appears that this court found that the respondent no.2 before it wanted to continue as Secretary as long as possible. It found that in the facts of those cases, since 1980 no elections were held and from observations made in para nos.7 and 9, it appears that this court found that the respondent no.2 before it wanted to continue as Secretary as long as possible. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 there also expressed that the respondent no.2 was interested in holding the elections as early as possible. In such circumstances, this court allowed the petition and directed the elections to be held by secret ballot. It is thus be seen that since this court has found that there was no adjudication involved in the matter because the directions sought was against public trust and only to hold elections in accordance with law. 15. In earlier judgment, in the matter of Lahudas Karad Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the challenge before this Court was that the Joint Charity Commissioner had no powers to interfere in the powers relating to membership and elections of Governing Council of Society. It was contended that the President, Election Officer of Society were competent to hold elections on the basis of the list containing 834 members. There was already directions issued by High Court in a Writ Petition to fix election program. It appears that the final list of voters was questioned on the ground of provisional list was containing only 483 members and final list containing 834 members. The Joint Charity Commissioner was approached under sections 41-A and 41E, contending that this list containing 834 members was not authentic list and it contained 351 bogus members. The President opposed it and contended that members were added as per the directions of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 25-10-1991. In para no.21 itself, in this background that this court observed, that there was earlier no preventive measures under B.P.T. Act and Sections 32 to 41 thereof provide for proper administration and proper accounting or appropriation of income of Trust. It is concluded that Section 41-A does not contemplate any adjudication and, therefore not subjected to rules of natural justice and hence, directions under section 41A are not appealable nor can be questioned under section 72 of the B.P.T. Act. This Court in paragraph No.23 found that the application under section 41-A by persons whose admission as members is refused by trustees is not maintainable. This Court in paragraph No.23 found that the application under section 41-A by persons whose admission as members is refused by trustees is not maintainable. The underlying idea of Section 41-A is held to be that, those directions should relate only to the administration of public trust or for proper accounting or for appropriation of income of trust to its object. In paragraph no.27, it is further observed that under section 41-A, it was not open to the Joint Charity Commissioner to issue directions interfering with the election process and list of voters. It is also observed that unless and until members who were registered were heard, the Joint Charity Commissioner could not have taken any decision and could not have directed that list containing only 483 members should be treated as authentic list. Similar view is taken by this Court in reported judgment in the matter of Asaram Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra [2002(3) ALL MR 555] (supra), in which it has been held that Section 41-A only contemplates the issue of directions to trust or persons connected with the trust for proper administration of trust and it does not empower Joint Charity Commissioner to remove or appoint any new committee. It is also held in paragraph no. 10 that, when a specific provision is made for specific purpose in a statute, resort cannot be had to some other provisions in such statute to achieve that purpose. It is observed that when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner and not in other manner, otherwise the action is rendered void and illegal. The judgment in the matter of Navinchandra Jasani Vs. Pravinchandra Jasani & Ors. (supra), is cited to contend that adjudication in relation to eligibility criteria for enrollment as members is not envisaged therein. However, copy supplied on record is not legible and hence I am not relying upon it. Judgment in the case between - Hukum Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (supra), considers the provisions of Telegraph Act, 1885 and also Telegraph Rules framed therein. It has been held that there has to be a public emergency as pre-requisite for exercising powers under section 5(1) of the Telegraph Act, and Rule 422 empowers the Divisional Engineer to Act in the event of any emergency. Union of India (supra), considers the provisions of Telegraph Act, 1885 and also Telegraph Rules framed therein. It has been held that there has to be a public emergency as pre-requisite for exercising powers under section 5(1) of the Telegraph Act, and Rule 422 empowers the Divisional Engineer to Act in the event of any emergency. It is in this background in para no.8 it is observed that when a power is required to be exercised, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all. Similar view is taken in the judgment of Babu Verghese Vs. Bar Council of Kerala (Supra). There the Hon'ble Apex Court has noticed that Rule 6 of Bar Council of India Rules, required certain compliances and it can be resorted to only for urgent action. The Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that said rule contemplated confirmation of action taken thereunder by Bar Council of India, but, it found that action could not be taken unless agreed to by majority of members, and as there was no such majority, there was no scope for taking action. It has been observed that if, Rule 6 was to be applied, all ingredients thereof must be shown to have been fulfilled. In paragraph no.31 again the Hon 'ble Apex Court has noticed that, if manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. In this background, when the judgment in the case between Maha Pragya Vidhya Nidhi Foundation Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), on which the applicants have placed reliance is seen, there it is apparent that the challenge was to the order of the Charity Commissioner finalizing the list of valid members because of which 32 new members became eligible to vote. Perusal of paragraph no.15 of the judgment shows that, the petitioners before the High Court relied upon Section 41-A to point out the powers in Charity Commissioner to issue directions for proper administration of the trust. Perusal of paragraph no.15 of the judgment shows that, the petitioners before the High Court relied upon Section 41-A to point out the powers in Charity Commissioner to issue directions for proper administration of the trust. The Division Bench has noticed that when Charity Commissioner passed the impugned order, he did not usurp the jurisdiction of the managing committee to enroll its members, and he only corrected the erroneous decision of Managing Committee under his powers under Section 41-A. The Division Bench found that the trust, had in fact agreed that on applicants bringing necessary money, their applications would be considered and accordingly the Division Bench noticed that this was not the case of inherent absence of jurisdiction. Even observations in paragraph to show that the Division Bench found that, it was not that Charity Commissioner was without any power. The observations therefore clearly show that the scope of jurisdiction under section 41-A was not in question before the High Court in this ruling. 16. In the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the charge report filed by the trustees on 5-7-2003, filling in new vacancies has been accepted on 26-8-2003. The revision preferred by the applicants challenging the said acceptance is still pending. Not only this, but applicants have also moved on 4-2-2004 an application under section 41A of the Act. Copy of the said application is not made available on record of either of the Writ Petitions. However, it is to be noted that it is the trustees who are administering the trust and there are no fetters placed upon their powers either by Revisional Authority in the revision no.5/2004 (3/2004?) or in application under section 41-D. The constitution/scheme permits trustees to enroll new members. The question was whether in such circumstances, the Joint Charity Commissioner could have restrained the trustees i.e., the elected body from exercising their powers. Perusal of the interim orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, on 3-9-2004 reveals that, he noticed that there was no notice in general to all interested persons calling applications from them to become life members and coupled with it, he further noticed that the proceedings against trustees were pending in two matters before him. He found that if life members were taken without public notice, it would be against proper administration of the trust. He found that if life members were taken without public notice, it would be against proper administration of the trust. He held that if meeting dt.4-9-2004, was stayed it would tantamount to postponing consideration of the said issue, if at all he was satisfied about the propriety of the action taken by the trustees. However, in these background when final judgment is perused, the Joint Charity Commissioner has noticed that the grievance about procedure followed for enrollment of new members made by the applicants before it was not justified at all. He further found that inspite of the interim orders, some members were already inducted as life members and application for taking appropriate action for such violation was already filed. It is in this background that in view of the limitation of his powers under section 41-A, the Joint Charity Commissioner found it proper not to grant all prayers made by the applicants before it. It is apparent that all those prayers could not have been granted without actually complying with the principles of natural justice and adjudication of the controversy involved. It is also apparent that no decision about correctness or otherwise of enrollment of new members could have been taken behind their back, and in any case such a decision could not have been taken in proceedings under section 41-A. The other reliance pointed out by the learned counsel for trustees in this respect i.e. judgment in the case of Diwakar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. (supra), also shows that rules of natural justice apply as much to proceedings in courts of law, as to the proceedings before the Authorities elsewhere. 17. Apart from this, judgment in the matter of Lahudas Sambhaji Karad Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), in para no.27 expressly states that unless the members registered were heard, Joint Charity Commissioner could not have taken decision about removal of their names from list of voters. It is therefore apparent that, no exception can be taken to the approach of Joint Charity Commissioner in this respect. 18. Perusal of judgment in the matter of Dr. R. P. Kapoor Vs. The Assistant Charity Commissioner (supra), shows that this Court there found in paragraph no.14 that Section 50-A of B.P.T. Act cannot be invoked for mere purpose of filling in vacancies of trustees not filled in by existing trustees for quite some time. 18. Perusal of judgment in the matter of Dr. R. P. Kapoor Vs. The Assistant Charity Commissioner (supra), shows that this Court there found in paragraph no.14 that Section 50-A of B.P.T. Act cannot be invoked for mere purpose of filling in vacancies of trustees not filled in by existing trustees for quite some time. It is also o15served that for framing of scheme under section 50-A, requires the Authority to satisfy itself that such framing of scheme was necessary or expedient in public interest. If such satisfaction is wanting the order cannot be sustained. While considering the provisions of Section 50-A(2), this Court in the judgment between Taher Alimohohamad Poonawala and Quizar Shaikh Nomanbhoy (supra), has held that while sanctioning initiation of suo motu inquiry thereunder, Charity Commissioner must form prima facie opinion and he must have a reason to believe that proposed amalgamation is in interest of proper management or administration of public trust. He has to record brief reasons for arriving at such prima facie opinion and reasonable opportunity is to be given to trustees to show cause in this respect. Along with this ruling, my attention is also invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case between Council for Indian School Certificate Vs. Isha Mittal and another (supra), to urge that when law is in favour of the trustees the High Court cannot circumvent the said law on the ground of equity. There cannot be any debate on this proposition. It is also clear from earlier rulings that when statute mandates a particular thing to be done in particular manner, it must be done only accordingly and not otherwise. 19. In the present case, though the Joint Charity Commissioner has not directed exactly in what manner the scheme has to be altered or amended, what should be the qualification or disqualification etc., it is clear that in operative part he has issued mandatory directions to amend the constitution of the trust, as observed by him in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of his order. From the discussions of case laws above, it is apparent that such a direction could not have been issued without previous notice thereof to the trustees and without giving them reasonable opportunity in the matter. From the discussions of case laws above, it is apparent that such a direction could not have been issued without previous notice thereof to the trustees and without giving them reasonable opportunity in the matter. It is apparent that in the face of Sections 50 and 50-A, powers under section 41-A could not have been utilised by Joint Charity Commissioner to issue such directions. Though the Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded his satisfaction that amendment was necessary in the interest of public trust, such satisfaction is required to be reached only after giving due opportunity to the trustees to counter it. Though in the facts of the present case, Advocate Deo, during the course of arguments stated that the trustees have noticed these short 1mings in the constitution, and they voluntarily decided to amend it, but, he contended that such an exercise cannot be permitted to be undertaken under section 41-A of B.P.T. Act. It is apparent that the directions to amend constitution given by the respondent No.3 Joint Charity Commissioner are unsustainable and hence, the same are required to be quashed and set aside. It is to be noted that the impugned judgment has been delivered on 10-6-2005. On 18-6-2005, the Trust has enrolled 8 more members and 3 of newly enrolled members have become trustees on that date. None of these members are parties before this Court in the present Writ Petition. 20. In view of the discussions above, I find that no case is made out for interference with the judgment of Joint Charity Commissioner in Writ Petition No.2967/2005, the said Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 21. Writ Petition No.4342/2005, is allowed and directions to amend the constitution given by the Joint Charity Commissioner therein is quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.