JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE question that arises for our consideration in these two appeals is: "whether, the learned District Judge, Gadag, by his common order dated 26. 03. 02 in Misc. Case Nos. 3/01 and 4/01 was justified in reversing the finding of the Hon'ble Charity Commissioner, belgaum, in revision petitions No. 10/97 and 11/97 dated 08. 02. 01?" ( 2. ) THE appellants herein filed revision petitions No. 10/97 and 11/97 before the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, contending that, the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Enquiry No. 519/1990 dated 5. 11. 90 and Enquiry No. 100/90-91 dated 7. 2. 91 is unlawful and illegal. According to the appellants, they are the Archak and Parupattedar of Sri Veeranarayana Swamy Temple at Gadag and that a Vrindavan of sri Raghavendra Mahaswamigal has been established within the precincts of the said temple and as per the resolution dated 10. 4. 1942. Every year, aradhana of Sri Raghavendra Mahaswamigal has to be performed for which, a separate committee has to be constituted and a separate body is also registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Contending that the respondent No. 1 herein, without issuing any notice to the appellants, behind their back, has co-opted the remaining respondents and alleging that the procedure followed in co-opting the respondents is contrary to the bye-laws of the Trust, the revision petitions, were filed before the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum. The Charity commissioner, Belgaum, after hearing the parties, noticed that the procedure followed by respondent No. 1 is not in accordance with bye-laws and allowed and remanded the matter to the Assistant Charity commissioner for fresh enquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity to both the parties. ( 3. ) CHALLENGING the order dated 8. 2. 01 passed by the Charity commissioner, Belgaum, in Revision Petitions No. 11/97 and 10/97, the respondents herein, filed Misc. Cases No. 3/01 and 4/01. before the District judge, Gadag. The learned District Judge, after hearing the parties, has allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the Charity commissioner, Belgaum on the ground that the respondents have been co-opted by following the bye-laws of the Sri Raghavendra Swamy Utsav mandal. Challenging the divergent findings of the District Judge, Gadag and the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants herein. ( 4. Challenging the divergent findings of the District Judge, Gadag and the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants herein. ( 4. ) WE have heard the learned Counsels appearing for both the parties. The only point to be considered by us in these appeals is: "whether the co-option or election of respondents 2 to 5 is in accordance with the bye-laws of the Trust known as Sri raghavendra Swamy Utsav Mandal dated 10. 04. 1942? ( 5. ) WE have perused the copy of the bye-laws produced before us. In resolution No. 1, it is mentioned that the President and Vice President namely Sri Asundi Anantaraya and Sri Sardar Bala Saheb shall be the members and they shall together select one of the members of the Panch committee of Sri Veeranarayana Trikuteshwara Temple and they shall also co-opt one of the Paricharak and Archak of the temple to the permanent utsav Mandal and these five persons shall perform the Aradhana mahotsava of Sri Raghavendra Swamy Temple. From this, it is clear that, every year, while co-opting the members, they have to hear all the five members and if any vacancy arises, they also shall co-opt in terms of the resolution No. 1 of the bye-laws. Since the appellants contend that no notice was issued to them before co-option since they are affected parties, the charity Commissioner was justified in allowing the revision petitions and in directing the Assistant Charity Commissioner to conduct an enquiry afresh. But, the learned District Judge, Gadag, without considering the same, on the ground that the appellants herein are not the aggrieved persons, has set aside the order passed by the Charity Commissioner. Whether the appellants herein were the affected parties, whether they were to be heard by the Committee before co-opting any other members are matters to be inquired into by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, a decision has to be taken by him. Since these questions were not raised before the Enquiry Officer as no opportunity was there for the appellants to substantiate their ground, we are of the opinion that the appeals are to be allowed and the order passed by the learned District Judge, Gadag, in both the Misc. Cases are to be set aside. In the result, these two appeals are allowed. The common order passed by the learned District Judge, Gadag, dated 26. 03. Cases are to be set aside. In the result, these two appeals are allowed. The common order passed by the learned District Judge, Gadag, dated 26. 03. 02 in Misc. Cases No. 3/01 and 4/01 is hereby set aside by affirming the common order dated 8. 2. 01 passed by the Hon'ble Charity Commissioner in Revision Petitions No. 10/97 and 11/97. Since the Bombay Trust Act has been repealed by virtue of the karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, the matter has to be remanded to the learned District Judge, Gadag who shall inquire into the matter in detail after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. Ordered accordingly.