Judgment A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. The present petition involves the following two questions: (i) Who is the authority to decide which trustee or a board of trustee or groups of trustees or persons connected with the trust are entitled to administer the Trust, its institutions or schools or colleges and whether the Deputy Director of Education or any other Education Authority will have jurisdiction to decide such issue or authorize the trustees or board of trustees or group of trustees to look after the administration of the schools run by a Trust pending disposal of the change reports before the Assistant Charity Commissioner or even in case of dispute? (ii) Whether there is any power with the Deputy Director of Education or any other Education Authority or the Education Officer to withdraw the administrative or financial powers of head of the institutions/schools and authorize any other or senior most teacher from the same school and if so, in what circumstances? 3. There is no dispute that Sategaon Education Society, Sategaon is a registered Society/Trust under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act as well as the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the said Society is a Education Society/Trust. There were in all eight trustees as per P.T.R. register of the Trust, which runs two grant-in-aid schools, recognized by the Government, namely, J.D. Patil High School and Junior College, Sategaon and Smt. Kokilabai Gawande High School at Turkhed. Out of eight trustees, Secretary Shri Vasant Mankar died on 11.11.2008 and thus as per P.T.R. entries, seven trustees remained after the death of Shri Vasant Mankar. It appears that three trustees are under the group of President Shri N.N. Mankar and remaining four trustees are under the group of Vice-President Shri M.G. Kale. The group of Vice-President admitted Smt. Rekha Mankar the widow of the the then Secretary Shri Vasant Mankar in the Trust on the post of Secretary and accordingly he filed the change report with the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, reporting the change. The group of President filled up the vacant post of Secretary; replaced few trustees by other persons and filed change report vide Change Report No.119/2008. 4. The dispute sparked with the group of Vice-President questioning the legality and validity of promotion of one Ku. The group of President filled up the vacant post of Secretary; replaced few trustees by other persons and filed change report vide Change Report No.119/2008. 4. The dispute sparked with the group of Vice-President questioning the legality and validity of promotion of one Ku. U.P. Khadse on the post of Headmistress on the ground that the resolution to appoint her was a false and fake resolution shown by the group of President and since majority of the trustees i.e. four trustees including the trustee Shri M.G. Kale i.e. Vice-President were not party to the said alleged resolution, they did not approve the said appointment. The alleged appointment was made by the trustees, who were not competent and legally entitled to appoint her. The Vice-President Shri M.G. Kale and his group then passed a resolution to relieve Ku. U.P. Khadse from the administrative and financial powers and to assign the same temporarily to supervisor of the school and in terms of the said resolution they submitted proposal dated 13.7.2009 to the Education Officer requesting him to withdraw the powers. The Education Officer approved the said resolution by his order dated 15.7.2009, but on 11.8.2009, he cancelled the said order dated 15.7.2009 and again restored the said order dated 15.7.2009 on the same date. In Writ Petition No.3983/2009 decided on 11.1.2010, this Court found that the said Headmistress Ku. U.P. Khadse was not heard when the Education Officer withdrew her administrative and financial powers and therefore, directed the Deputy Director of Education to hear all the concerned parties and to pass appropriate orders. The Deputy Director of Education thereafter pursuant to the said directions heard the matter upon remand and recorded a finding that the trustees allegedly elected in the election on 16.3.2008 shown in the Change Report No.119/2008 are the authorized trustees i.e. the group led by the president to look after the administration of the school till the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati and consequently, the proposal submitted by the group of Vice-President to withdraw the administrative and financial powers of Ku. U.P. Khadse was rejected. U.P. Khadse was rejected. The only reason which impressed the Deputy Director of Education was that the group led by the Vice-President did not even claim to have held any election as against the group led by the President which claimed to have held election on 16.3.2008 and that is why the elected body under the said election dated 16.3.2008 was entitled to administer the affairs of the school till the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The review application that was filed before the same authority stood rejected. Thereafter, this petition has been filed in this Court. 5. Answer to question No.1 :- There is no dispute that the Sategaon Education Society is a registered Public Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act reads thus: “22. Change (1) Where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under section 17, the trustee shall, within 90 days from the date of the occurrence of such change, or where any change is desired in such entries in the interest of the administration of such public trust, report such change or proposed change to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in charge of the public Trusts Registration Office where the register is kept. Such report shall be made in the prescribed form. [(1A)] Where the change to be reported under sub-section (1) relates to any immovable property, the trustee shall, along with the report, furnish a memorandum in the prescribed form containing the particulars (including the name and description of the public trust) relating to any change in the immovable property of such public trust, for forwarding it to the Sub-Registrar referred to in subsection (7) of section 18. Such memorandum shall be signed and verified in the prescribed manner by the trustee or his agent specially authorised by him in this behalf. (2) For the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register kept under section 17 or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the particulars recorded in the register, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner. (2) For the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register kept under section 17 or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the particulars recorded in the register, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner. (3) If the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner, as the case may be, after receiving a report under sub-section (1) and holding an inquiry, if necessary under sub-section (2), or merely after holding an inquiry under the said sub-section (2), is satisfied that a change has occurred in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under section 17 in regard to a particular public trust, or that the trust should be removed from the register by reason of the change, resulting in both the office of the administration of the trust and the whole of the trust property ceasing to be situated in the State, he shall record a finding with the reasons therefore to that effect; and if he is not so satisfied, he shall record a finding with reasons therefore accordingly. Any such finding shall be appealable to the Charity Commissioner. The Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner shall amend or delete the entries in the said register in accordance with the finding which requires an amendment or deletion of entries and if appeals or applications were made against such finding, in accordance with the final decision of the competent authority provided by this Act. The amendments in the entries so made subject to any further amendment on occurrence of a change or any cancellation of entries, shall be final and conclusive. (4) Whenever an entry is amended or the trust is removed from the register under sub-section (3), the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner, as the case may be, shall forward the memorandum furnished to him under sub-section (1A), after certifying the amended entry or the removal of the trust from the register to the Sub-Registrar referred to in sub-section (7) or section 18, for the purpose of filing in Book No.1 under section 89 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, in its application to the State of Maharashtra.” 6. Reading of the above provisions clearly shows that the change report has to be filed when any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register maintained under Section 17 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Reading of the above provisions clearly shows that the change report has to be filed when any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register maintained under Section 17 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Needless to say that the change in the board of trustees or a trustee for whatever reason is required to be reported under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Such a change report/enquiry is then registered and after making necessary enquiry the Assistant Charity Commissioner makes an order either accepting the change or rejecting the same. Thus, the authority to decide as to who are the trustees of the Trust or which trustees should constitute the board of trustees of a Trust and consequently, which trustees or board of trustees should run the administration of the institutions of the Trust is within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 7. In the instant case, the group of Vice-President claimed that they are in majority i.e. four trustees on one side while the group of President claimed that they have inducted new trustees in the vacant post of trustees after removing some trustees from the executive committee by passing resolution (alleged election) on 16.3.2008 i.e. change report No.119/2008. Perusal of the said change report shows that out of earlier six trustees five have been removed and replaced by new trustees. This change report is in dispute so also the change report filed by the group of Vice-President by which the widow of Shri Vasant Mankar i.e. Smt. Rekha Vasant Mankar was inducted as a trustee/secretary by resolution dated 13.12.2008, which is disputed by the rival group. Thus, both the change reports are now pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner for approval. It is, thus, clear that these changes shown by both the rival groups clearly fall within the Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and it is the Assistant Charity Commissioner who has jurisdiction to decide the validity thereof. Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 reads thus. “80. It is, thus, clear that these changes shown by both the rival groups clearly fall within the Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and it is the Assistant Charity Commissioner who has jurisdiction to decide the validity thereof. Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 reads thus. “80. Bar of Jurisdiction Save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act, and in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive.” 8. Perusal of Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act shows that the jurisdiction to decide the validity of the elections, changes in the board of trustees or trustees having thus been conferred with the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the legislature has imposed bar against entertaining a suit by Civil Court. There is no provision by which the Education Officer or the Deputy Director of Education or the Director of Education has any authority or power to decide these issues. In the case of Jagatnarayansingh Swarupsingh Chithere and others...Versus...Swarupsingh Education Society and another, reported in 1980 Mh.L.J. 372 this Court held that the extent of jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act is not limited to the only factum of change but it extends its legality and validity as well. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the Deputy Director of Education had no authority, power or jurisdiction to decide which board of trustees or trustees shall run the management of the Trust and the Schools but the jurisdiction is with the Assistant Charity Commissioner. We therefore hold that the order dated 30.1.2010, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati holding that the elected Management led by President in the election on 16.3.2008 and the members shown in the Change Report No.119/2008 are the authorized trustees to look after the management of the Trust and the school, is without any authority and without jurisdiction. It is noteworthy that this Court while remitting the matter to the Deputy Director of Education while deciding Writ Petition No.3983/2009 on 11.1.2010 had never asked the Deputy Director of Education to decide this question as to who shall run the Trust and its institutions. 10. The next question that arises for consideration is the modality by which the Assistant Charity Commissioner can recognize or issue directions as to the trustees, who shall administer the Trust and its institutions/schools/colleges. Sections 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 read thus. “41A. Power of Commissioner to issue directions for proper administration of the trust (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Charity Commissioner may from time to time issue directions to any trustee of a public trust or any person connected therewith, to ensure that the trust is properly administered, and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied to the objects and for the purposes of the trust; and the Charity Commissioner may also give directions to the trustees or such person if he finds that any property of the trust is in danger of being wasted, damaged alienated or wrongfully sold, removed or disposed of. (2) It shall be the duty of every trustee or of such person to comply with the directions issued under sub-section (1). 11. This Court has dealt with the said provision of Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act in some cases. We propose to recapitulate a few. In the case of Nathmal Kisanlalji Goenka and another...Versus...Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Akola and another, reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 303 a single judge of this Court held that the power under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act can be exercised to direct the trustees or the persons connected with the Trust to hold elections even by secret ballot. In the case of Asaram Bhimrao Shinde and others...Versus...State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 548 and in the case of Dattatraya s/o Mahadeo Hiware and others...Versus...Arjun s/o Sambhaji Shinde and others, reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 48 a single Judge of this Court held that there is no power in the Assistant Charity Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to either remove the trustees or appoint any new trustees or board of trustees. In First Appeal No.354/1998 decided on 28.8.1999 a single Judge of this Court held thus : “It goes without saying that according to the present practice followed during the pendency of theenquiries, unless there is an order under Section 41 – A of the Act, putting somebody other than the one whose name is entered in the register incharge of the Trust, it is only those persons whose names are entered in the register can continue to manage the affairs of the trust.” 12. From perusal of the provision of Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, we find that the Charity Commissioner is empowered to issue directions to any trustee or a person connected therewith to ensure that the trust is properly administered. Since schools, colleges and institutions are run by public trusts, it follows that any such directions will ensure that they are properly administered either during the pendency of disputed change reports or as the case may be. We, therefore, hold that an order under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act can be passed to direct or recognise a trustee/trustees/Board of Trustees or the persons connected with the trust whose names are either entered or not entered in the P.T. Register maintained under Section 17 of the Act, pending disputes between them or even otherwise. We, however, do not agree with the proposition stated in judgment dated 28.8.1999 in First Appeal No.354/1998, that 'somebody' other than whose name is to be found in P.T. Register can be empowered under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act speaks of only 'trustees' or the 'persons connected therewith' and not 'somebody'. It is also not possible to agree with the statement that in the absence of any order under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, only those persons whose names are entered in the register can continue to manage the affairs of the trust. It is also not possible to agree with the statement that in the absence of any order under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, only those persons whose names are entered in the register can continue to manage the affairs of the trust. It is a matter of common experience that persons shown as trustees in the register i.e. Schedule - I under Rule 5 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 are shown to exist as trustees even though their tenure/term as trustees as indicated in the bye-laws, memorandum of association or Rules or regulations had come to an end years back or such names are hardly one or two or who are unable to run the trust for one or the other reason. Therefore, merely because names of such persons whose names exist in Schedule - I and whose term had expired or for any other reason they cannot function as trustees or fresh elections have been held under a particular fact situation, such trustees alone would not be entitled to continue to manage the affairs of the Trust. In our opinion, each case will have to be decided on the facts, materials and evidence available on record and by applying the law. The change reports in respect of elections, filling up of vacancies of trustees, schemes are filed with the Assistant Charity Commissioner and every endeavour should be made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide such change reports expeditiously and in case of any dispute amongst the trustees, power under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act can be invoked either suo motu by the Assistant Charity Commissioner or on application of the trustees or the persons connected with the Trust or the Education or other authority for issuance of directions in the matter of administration of the Trust and its institutions. In the case in hand, the Deputy Director of Education ought to have directed the parties before him to either get the change reports decided one way or the other or get directions under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act as to the persons/trustees authorized to manage the Trust and its institutions. 13. Answer to question No.2 :- The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed before us the following two circulars as to the exercise of power by the education authorities. 13. Answer to question No.2 :- The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed before us the following two circulars as to the exercise of power by the education authorities. (i) No. Amasha/4179/32310/K, Directorate of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune-1, dated 24.2.1986. (ii) No. Amasha – 4179-K-Pune-1, dated 8.1.1988. 14. Rule3 (1) (2) (3) (4) and (5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 provide for qualifications and appointment of Head. There is a procedure given in details therein regarding qualifications, experience and the procedure required to be followed. Rule 3(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 empowers the Eduction Officer/Deputy Director of Educations thus : “3 (6) – The Education Officer or the Deputy Director shall direct the management to cancel the appointments made without following the procedure laid down in this rule. 15. Reading of these provisions clearly show that the Education Officer/Deputy Director can direct the management to cancel the appointments made only when the procedure laid in Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules is not followed. Thus, there is no power in these officers to cancel/suspend or withdraw the approval or administrative and financial powers of a Head master for any other reason than those mentioned in Rule 3(1) to (5) of the M.E.P.S. Rules; and therefore in case of dispute amongst the trustees about such appointment, power under Rule 3(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules cannot be exercised. Both the above Circulars dated 24.6.1986 and 08.01.1988 have repository of power only under Rule 3(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules and thus action to be taken as mentioned in these Circulars will be only when the appointment is found to be in breach of Rule 3(1) to (5) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. In the case in hand, there are no allegations about the breach of Rule 3(1) to (5) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, but they are about the legality and validity of the status of the trustees/Board of trustees and thus power under Rule 3(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules and the said Circulars cannot be exercised. Consequently, the impugned order would be bad in law. In the result, we make the following order. ORDER (i) Writ petition No.3034/2010 is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 30.1.2010, Annexure -G is quashed and set aside. (iii) Ku. Consequently, the impugned order would be bad in law. In the result, we make the following order. ORDER (i) Writ petition No.3034/2010 is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 30.1.2010, Annexure -G is quashed and set aside. (iii) Ku. U.P. Khadse, Headmistress shall continue to function as such till making of any direction under Section 41 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 or decision of change reports regarding Board of Trustees/Trustees of the parent society. (iv) No order as to costs.