JUDGMENT 1. These two second appeals impugn the judgment and order passed by District Judge1, Amravati while disposing of Misc. Civil Application Nos. 21 of 2012 and 40 of 2012 by common judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2012. Said two Misc. Civil Applications arose out of a common judgment and order dated 13th December, 2011 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal Nos. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010. Appeal No. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010 had arisen out of the order passed by Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati in Enquiry No.135 of 2007 under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 2. The said enquiry under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was initiated on the change report submitted by appellant No.1 Shri Sandeep Ram Meghe in Second Appeal No. 408 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “appellant No.1”). The said change report was in respect of the change in the Executive Committee of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 vide Registration No.F242/Amravati. Elections were held on 3rd December, 2006 and in the result new executive committee was elected. 67 members out of total 78 members had participated in the election meeting held by Election Officer Advocate Mr. Sarda. Appellant No.1, therefore, filed change report. Respondent Nos.1 to 10 and 11 to 15 in two separate groups objected for the change. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner after hearing both the parties had accepted the change report vide his order dated 7th December, 2009. The objection raised before the Deputy Charity Commissioner by the respondents was that 49 members were inducted in trust clandestinely and illegally in the so called meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 and as such they had not right to participate in the elections held on 3rd December, 2006. The said plea was turned down by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and the change was allowed. 3. The said order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner was challenged before the Joint Charity Commissioner in two separate appeals filed by the respondents being Appeal Nos.3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010. The Appeal No.3 of 2010 was filed by the respondent Nos. The said plea was turned down by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and the change was allowed. 3. The said order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner was challenged before the Joint Charity Commissioner in two separate appeals filed by the respondents being Appeal Nos.3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010. The Appeal No.3 of 2010 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and the appeal No.4 of 2010 was filed by the respondent No.11 to 15 in Second Appeal No.408 of 2012. It was submitted before the Joint Charity Commissioner by the respondents in their appeal Nos. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010 referred to above that induction of 49 members in the so called meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 was on basis of forged documents. It was contended that no such meeting was ever held and that the minutes of the meetings dated 2nd March, 2006 and 12th April, 2006 were fabricated inasmuch as backdated resolutions were passed so that the appellants herein who were the respondents before the Joint Charity Commissioner could establish their majority during the course of elections. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner while deciding said two appeals allowed Appeal No. 3 of 2010 and dismissed Appeal No. 4 of 2010. In fact, both the appellants had raised similar issues. However, Appeal No. 4 of 2010 was dismissed mainly on the ground that the appellants therein (Respondent Nos. 11 to 15 in Second Appeal No.408 of 2012) had participated in the said two meetings dated 2nd March, 2006 and 12th April, 2006. The appellants in Appeal No. 4 of 2010 had, however, later on alleged that their signatures were obtained by force. 4. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner held that election dated 3rd December, 2006 was vitiated because of induction of 49 members by caretaker managing body. The term of the managing body elected on 15th December, 2000 had expired after five years and therefore, induction of 49 members in the meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 was found to be invalid. Therefore, Joint Charity Commissioner was of the view that change in the managing body on the basis of such vitiated elections could not have been accepted. The term of the managing body elected on 15th December, 2000 had expired after five years and therefore, induction of 49 members in the meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 was found to be invalid. Therefore, Joint Charity Commissioner was of the view that change in the managing body on the basis of such vitiated elections could not have been accepted. The latest election dated 11th December, 2011 was also declared invalid for the same reason and it was directed that the appellants should not take charge of the executive committee on the basis of election dated 3rd December, 2006 or 11th December, 2011. It was directed that the trust should hold special general body meeting within one month from the date of order (13.12.2011) to elect new executive council/ committee from amongst the list of 31 members existing before induction of 49 members. 5. The dispute was carried to the District Court by filing two Misc. Applications bearing Nos. 23 of 2012 and 40 of 2012. The Misc. Application No.23 of 2012 was filed by the trust and the appellants in Second Appeal No.408 of 2012 and Misc. Application No.40 of 2012 was filed by the appellants in Second Appeal No.415 of 2012. The District Judge-1 of Amravati by his impugned judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2012 had dismissed both the Misc. Civil Applications filed by the applicants and has as such confirmed the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati. 6. These two second appeals challenge above stated common order of the District Judge passed in Application Nos. 23 of 2012 and 40 of 2012. When the appeals came up for hearing before this Court (Coram: Shri M.N. Gilani, J), the same were admitted as they involved following substantial questions of law: “(i) Have not the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction in deciding the issue of membership of the 49 members inducted in the Trust on 02/03/2012 in utter disregard to rules of natural justice in a proceeding, to which the said members are not arrayed as parties? (ii) Is not the issue as regards legality or otherwise of membership of the 49 members beyond the scope of enquiry of the Change Report Proceeding? (ii) Is not the issue as regards legality or otherwise of membership of the 49 members beyond the scope of enquiry of the Change Report Proceeding? (iii) Is not the finding, that the Executive Committee of the Trust could not induct new members after the tenure of five years had lapsed, contrary to Clause-20 of the Scheme of the Trust, which provides that existing Committee shall continue to hold office till constitution of the new Committee, and therefore, unsustainable in law ?” 7. If one goes through these three substantial questions of law, the sum and substance of the questions would be as to whether in an enquiry under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 the legality or otherwise of induction of 49 members could have been examined or not, whether the Joint Charity Commissioner was under obligation to issue notices to said 49 members before passing adverse orders against them inasmuch as they were disqualified from participating in the elections and as to whether the executive committee was empowered to induct new members even after expiry of its tenure of five years. 8. To decide the said three questions of law framed by this Court it would be necessary to state, in brief, facts giving rise to the change report and the subsequent proceedings before the Joint Charity Commissioner and the District Judge. The trust known as 'Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society' was established by the founder trustee of the President Late Shri Ram Meghe. Last elections of the Trust, before elections in question in the present proceedings, were held on 15th December, 2000. According to the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the trust, the term of every executive council shall be of five years and the executive council is allowed to remain in office till the successor is constituted. The term of the executive council elected on 15th December, 2000 was to expire in the month of December, 2005. The trust had inducted 5 life members on 28th February, 2005 and 8 more life members on 23rd June, 2005. As the term of the earlier executive council had expired in the month of December, 2005, the elections of the trust were scheduled to be held on 16th February, 2006. However, in the meantime, two writ petitions bearing Nos. 2967 of 2005 and 4342 of 2005 were filed before this Court. As the term of the earlier executive council had expired in the month of December, 2005, the elections of the trust were scheduled to be held on 16th February, 2006. However, in the meantime, two writ petitions bearing Nos. 2967 of 2005 and 4342 of 2005 were filed before this Court. It appears that due to some ad interim orders of this Court in Writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals the elections scheduled to be held on 16th February, 2006 were delayed. 9. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that a lot of time was devoted on the facts and circumstances leading to filing of above two writ petitions, during the course of hearing of the present two second appeals. However, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into details of the said two writ petitions while deciding the present appeals, being second appeals and involving only questions of law. 10. The elections to the trust were held on 3rd December, 2006. 67 members participated in the elections out of 78 members of the trust. The appellant No.1 in Second Appeal No.408 of 2010, the reporting trustee, filed proceedings under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act being Enquiry No.135 of 2007 to bring changes on record. 11. Before I proceed further, it may be noted here that during the period intervening 16th February, 2006 and the elections dated 3rd December, 2006, a meeting was held on 2nd March, 2006 in which 20 life members and 29 ordinary members were inducted in the general body of the trust. These 49 members were part of the electorate who participated in the elections dated 3rd December, 2006. 12. Going back to the change report submitted by appellant No.1, it may be stated here that the respondents took objection to the said change report mainly on the ground that the alleged meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 was never held and the names of the newly inducted members were never confirmed as alleged in the minutes of meeting dated 12th October, 2006. It was contended before the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner that the records were manipulated and false documents were prepared to create record of meetings dated 2nd March, 2006 and 12th April, 2006 only with a view to see that the appellants get majority and could succeed in the elections. It was contended before the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner that the records were manipulated and false documents were prepared to create record of meetings dated 2nd March, 2006 and 12th April, 2006 only with a view to see that the appellants get majority and could succeed in the elections. The said plea raised by the respondents was rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and change report was accepted. 13. As already stated, the matter was carried in appeal to the Joint Charity Commissioner. Two appeals bearing Nos. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010 were heard together by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Appeal No. 3 of 2010 was allowed and Appeal No. 4 of 2010 was dismissed. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner accepted the contention of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 that meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 was a manipulation of record and similarly confirmation meeting, as alleged, was never held on 12th April, 2006. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner also was of the view that the executive council holding charge after expiry of the term was not authorized to take any policy decision and could not have inducted life members and ordinary members in the so called meeting dated 2nd March, 2006. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner further held that since induction of 49 members was not valid, elections dated 3rd December, 2006 were vitiated and that change report should not have been accepted by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner had directed that the executive council shall be elected from amongst the existing 31 members only. A direction was issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner to hold a special general body meeting within one month from the date of order i.e. 13th December, 2011. The applications challenging this order were also dismissed by the District Judge. 14. The first question of law which needs determination in the present appeals is as under: “Have not the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction in deciding the issue of membership of the 49 members inducted in the Trust on 02/03/2012 in utter disregard to rules of natural justice in a proceeding, to which the said members are not arrayed as parties ?” 15. Learned counsel Mr. Shashank Manohar and Mr. Learned counsel Mr. Shashank Manohar and Mr. Gilda have submitted on behalf of the appellants that in fact the Joint Charity Commissioner had no authority to examine the validity or otherwise of induction of 49 members in the general body of the trust. It was submitted that the role of the Deputy Charity Commissioner was limited to the extent of examining whether the members in respect of whom changes were reported were elected in the elections or otherwise. They supported the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner accepting the change report. It was brought to my notice that the Deputy Charity Commissioner had held a detailed inquiry and found no substance in the submissions made by the respondents. It was contended that the validity or otherwise of induction of 49 members or their status in the society could have been decided by the competent civil Court and not by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. 16. Apart from this, it is also contended that if at all the said issue was to be examined by the Joint Charity Commissioner it was necessary to issue notices to the said 49 members, as the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner was to adversely affect the said 49 members. In this regard reliance was placed on unreported judgment of this Court in Second Appeal Nos. 25 of 2011 and 125 of 2011. In the said case reporting trustee Salim Khan had filed change report in respect of the trustees who were elected in the election dated 31st August, 2004. The change report was rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The reporting trustee preferred appeal before Joint Charity Commissioner. The appeal was allowed and the change report was accepted. One Mr. Karmat Ali, who was respondent before the Joint Charity Commissioner, had filed an appeal under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the District Judge challenging order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. The reporting trustee was joined as respondent. Other nine elected trustees were not made party to the said proceedings. The District Judge reversed the decision of the Joint Charity Commissioner. This Court in Second Appeal took a view that nine elected trustees were necessary parties to the proceedings and that the issue could not have been decided without they being heard. 17. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.H. Deshpande appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. The District Judge reversed the decision of the Joint Charity Commissioner. This Court in Second Appeal took a view that nine elected trustees were necessary parties to the proceedings and that the issue could not have been decided without they being heard. 17. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.H. Deshpande appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 has submitted that 49 members inducted in general body in the so called meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 were not necessary parties either before the Joint Charity Commissioner or before the District Judge. It was submitted that the proceedings from the stage of change report till the decision of the first appeal by the District Judge were within the knowledge of said 49 members. If they were 'persons having interest' as defined in Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 they could have moved the Joint Charity Commissioner for joining them as party to the proceedings. It was contended that respondent Nos. 1 to 10 were not under obligation to join the said 49 members as party to the proceedings as they were neither affected persons nor they had any right to be heard during the course of change report or further proceedings before the Joint Charity Commissioner and the District Judge, as the source of their induction in the general body itself was polluted. My attention was invited to the findings given by the Joint Charity Commissioner where it is clearly stated that the record of the meetings dated 2nd March, 2006 and 12th April, 2006 was manipulated. 18. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that since the executive council after the expiry of term of five years was caretaker council, it could not have taken policy decision like induction of 49 members of the general body. Induction of 49 members in the general body is before holding the elections clearly indicated that the induction of said 49 members was with a view to gain majority for the appellants. 19. As far as judgment of this court in Appeal No.25 of 2011 is concerned, on which a reliance is placed by the appellants, I am of the view that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case nine elected trustees were not made party to the proceedings pertaining to the change report. In the said case nine elected trustees were not made party to the proceedings pertaining to the change report. In the case before me, the members of electorate have not been made party to the proceedings. It is, therefore, necessary to be noted here that there is a lot of difference between the interest of the elected persons and the voters. It is not necessary that in all the proceedings where elected member is an affected party, the voter shall also be a necessary party. 49 members who were not party to the proceedings before the Joint Charity Commissioner were forming part of the electorate. Therefore, their case is to be examined from that point of view only and not from the point of view of the elected trustee. 20. It was vehemently submitted by Mr. Shashank Manohar that the Joint Charity Commissioner had no business to go into validity or otherwise of the induction of 49 members in the general body. In this regard, two judgments of this Court may be referred. The first judgment which I would like to refer is in the case of Jagatnarayan Singh Swarupsingh Chithere & oth. Vs. Swarupsingh Education Society & anr.,reported at 1980 Mh.L.J. 372. Contents of paragraph 8 of the said judgment are reproduced for the purpose of determination of question of law involved in the present appeals. The para 8 runs as under: “8.Therefore, though prima facie it appears to be a mere change, the scheme of the Act contemplates qua the change under consideration an inquiry of a Judicial character with an appeal therefrom to the Charity Commissioner and a further application under section 72 to the District Judge and yet another appeal therefrom to the High Court against which appellate judgment of the High Court, a still further appeal may, in a given case, lie under the letters patent. Such being the Judicial scrutiny and the extensive grant of the inquiry under section 22 of the Act, it is obvious that this inquiry can not be a mere factual process or one purely formal in nature. Investigation into the legality and validity of the change is implicit.... ” Second judgment is in the case of Karishanrao Kanhaiya Naidu & oth. vs. Jeevraj Bhairavlal Agrawal & oth., reported at 2010(2) Mh.L.J.31. This Court dealing with similar issue had stated in second part of paragraph 13 as under: “13. ….. Investigation into the legality and validity of the change is implicit.... ” Second judgment is in the case of Karishanrao Kanhaiya Naidu & oth. vs. Jeevraj Bhairavlal Agrawal & oth., reported at 2010(2) Mh.L.J.31. This Court dealing with similar issue had stated in second part of paragraph 13 as under: “13. ….. Shri Khapre learned counsel submits that this decision is a void decision as according to him the Charity Commissioner has no right to decide the issue of membership. Decision has been rendered by a Charity Commissioner and it is not challenged or set aside. It cannot be said to be an order which is non est and one without jurisdiction. Charity Commissioner in fact has a power to decide the question of validity enrollment of members since the question would always be whether the office bearers are elected by a valid electorate. If the persons who are not validly included in electoral roll elect then election by those persons would be invalid. Therefore, the Charity Commissioner would certainly have a right to go into the question of validity of electoral roll if called upon to decide the same. Charity Commissioner has always an over all control over any trust. Therefore, such an act on part of the Deputy Charity Commissioner to my mind was not one without jurisdiction. ...” 21. As such, it is abundantly clear from the above stated two judgments that an inquiry under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is judicial inquiry and is not formal inquiry only to record changes in the schedule. The Enquiry Officer, in fact, is under obligation to examine whether the members of the executive council whose names are to be recorded in the schedule are validly elected or not. A reference may also be made to a judgment of Gujrat High Court in Shantilal Khimchand & ors. vs. Mulchand Dalichand & ors., reported at (1962) 3GLR 117 wherein Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph No.10 observed as under: “10. …. The fundamental question before him would thus be whether a change has occurred and for that purpose it is obvious that he will have to enquire whether a change has occurred in the constitution of the trustees if the reported change relates to such a question. …. The fundamental question before him would thus be whether a change has occurred and for that purpose it is obvious that he will have to enquire whether a change has occurred in the constitution of the trustees if the reported change relates to such a question. As a necessary consequence he will have to see that the new trustees referred to in the change have been appointed as trustees in whom the trust property can legally vest. Such persons as are mentioned in the change can be trustees provided they are appointed by a body of persons authorised to appoint a trustee. Whenever therefore a question arises whether the body of persons who has appointed the trustees is not in fact the real body of persons who could appoint a trustee such a dispute will have to be enquired into and the officer holding the inquiry will have to go into that dispute because if an unauthorized group of persons or outsiders choose to appoint a trustee such a person cannot be said to be a trustee at all and it cannot be said in such a case that he has been appointed a trustee. For the purpose of proving the correctness of the fact of a change it will have to be shown not only that the appointment of a person has been made but also that such person is appointed as a trustee. …... The change contemplated by Section 22 postulates firstly a lawful cessation of the old position and secondly thereafter a lawful creation of a new one. If the new state of affairs constituting the change cannot in law change or substitute the old order there is no change at all in fact and such a supposed change cannot be recorded. The change in other words must occur as contemplated above before it is recorded and an inquiry into such an occurrence must include all matters interrelated and closely connected with it and which enable the inquiry officer to come to a conclusion regarding its existence. Moreover the position of a trustee is a position of status and an inquiry into the fact of the appointment is really an inquiry into the fact whether the appointment to hold such a status has been made. Moreover the position of a trustee is a position of status and an inquiry into the fact of the appointment is really an inquiry into the fact whether the appointment to hold such a status has been made. The real question in such cases would he whether a change in fact has occurred in the legal status and therefore would fall within the field if inquiry under Section 22 and whenever questions or disputes such as are indicated above arise it would be necessary to inquire into such disputes and to decide them. In the present case the inquiry into the change in the constitution of the trustees must therefore include the question whether the persons who were appointed were in fact appointed as person to hold the status of trustees. Such persons could not be trustees or hold the status of trustees in they were so appointed by persons who had no power to appoint them and an inquiry into the question as was made by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge was therefore proper.” As such while holding enquiry under Section 22 of the Act it is incumbent on the part of the Enquiry Officer to hold a full-fledged enquiry which may in a given case include examination of validity or otherwise of the electoral roll. If such procedure is not adopted by the Enquiry Officer, the very purpose of existence of Section 22 in the Act will be frustrated. In my opinion, in the absence of such extensive power to the Enquiry Officer, the provisions of Section 22 of the Act will be meaningless. Since the enquiry under Section 22 of the Act is judicial enquiry, it follows that it is not to be conducted in a clerical manner. In my opinion, therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge have not committed any error of law and jurisdiction in deciding the issue of membership of 49 members inducted in the trust on 2nd March, 2012. 22. As an extension to this issue, it was also argued that if at all any decision was to be taken in respect of the validity or otherwise of induction of 49 members, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to issue notices to the said 49 members. As already stated, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. As an extension to this issue, it was also argued that if at all any decision was to be taken in respect of the validity or otherwise of induction of 49 members, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to issue notices to the said 49 members. As already stated, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.H. Deshpande has submitted that since the source of induction of the members itself was polluted, they were not members of the general body and therefore, they did not deserve any hearing. The issue before the Joint Charity Commissioner was as to whether the meetings were held on 2nd March, 2006 and 12th April, 2006 in which 49 members were inducted and were later on confirmed. After hearing both the sides on this issue, I have come to a conclusion that it was not incumbent on the part of the Joint Charity Commissioner to issue notices to the said 49 members inasmuch as their participation in the proceedings, in any manner, would not have assisted the Joint Charity Commissioner to decide the issue as to whether the said meetings were genuine or otherwise. Moreover, issuance of notice to the affected persons may not be necessary in every enquiry under Section 22 of the Act. It is to be decided by the Enquiry Officer and the appellate Authority as to whether a particular person is affected party and will assist the Enquiry Officer or the appellate Authority, as the case may be, to decide the issue before it. In a case of Marutirao Vishwanath Bagal & ors. Vs. Dinkar Kashinath More & ors., reported at 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 982 this Court had occasion to deal with requirement of issuance of notice to the affected person. The Court while dealing with the said issue had framed following question of law: “(i) Whether the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner committed an error by deciding Change Report Proceedings under Section 22 of the said Act of 1950 without issuing a notice to the outgoing Trustees who were likely to be affected by the order passed in the Change Report Proceedings ?” While deciding the said question of law, this Court has made following observations at paragraph 10: “10. When the change report is as regards election of new Trustees held in a meeting, it is not necessary in every case that the notice must be served of the change report on the outgoing trustees.....” Though in the said case this Court held that notice was required to be issued, it was also held that it is not necessary that in every case notice must be served of the change report on the outgoing trustees. It was argued that in the present case, the notices should have been issued to 49 members whose induction was held to be invalid. I have already stated that those members were part of the electorate and not executive body. If the Joint Charity Commissioner was satisfied that the notices to the said 49 members were not necessary to be issued, the proceedings before him were, to my mind, not vitiated. As stated earlier, the presence of the said 49 members could not have, in any manner, assisted the Joint Charity Commissioner. 23. As such, in my considered opinion, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge have not committed any error in deciding the issue of membership of 49 members and had also not committed any error if the notices were not issued to said 49 members. 24. As far as second substantial question of law is concerned, that stood decided in view of my finding in respect of earlier question of law. It takes me to the third question of law i.e. “(iii) Is not the finding, that the Executive Committee of the Trust could not induct new members after the tenure of five years had lapsed, contrary to Clause-20 of the Scheme of the Trust, which provides that existing Committee shall continue to hold office till constitution of the new Committee, and therefore, unsustainable in law ?” 25. Learned Joint Charity Commissioner in his judgment at paragraph 23 has referred to the judgment of this Court in Mohd. Maqbool Vs. State, reported at AIR 1982 BOMBAY 312 and has come to a conclusion that once the term of executive council had expired it would not automatically stand extended beyond that. The executive council can remain in office till the new executive council is elected only to take care of day to day business of the trust. Maqbool Vs. State, reported at AIR 1982 BOMBAY 312 and has come to a conclusion that once the term of executive council had expired it would not automatically stand extended beyond that. The executive council can remain in office till the new executive council is elected only to take care of day to day business of the trust. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has held that the executive council whose term had expired on 14th December, 2005 could not have inducted 49 members on 2nd March, 2006. It was a decision of far reaching consequence and had changed the whole fabric of the general body. Such a decision to my mind could not have been taken by the caretaker executive council. Though Rule 20 of Rules and Regulations and Memorandum of Association do not specifically state the functions of the outgoing council after expiry of its term, it is matter of common sense and is applicable to all such bodies that the executive body whose term has expired would be care taker body and would refrain itself from taking any policy decisions. As a matter of fact, the executive council whose term has expired cannot remain in office. Such executive council remains in office only by way of necessity. As such, the period during which the executive council is in office by way of necessity is obviously only for the purpose of taking care of the property of the trust and its day to day affairs. In the present case, the executive council after the expiry of its term could not have inducted 49 members. Therefore, I do not find any error in the finding given by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the District Judge that the executive council after expiry of the term was purely caretaker/ ad-hoc body and could not have taken a policy decision particularly serious decision like induction of 49 members which could change the whole fabric of the general body and could influence the result of elections to a large extent. 26. Since the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and this Court did not find any reasons to disturb the concurrent findings given on facts, both the appeals must fail. Hence, I pass the following order. i) Second Appeal No. 408 of 2012 and Second Appeal No. 415 of 2012 stand dismissed. ii) No order as to costs. Hence, I pass the following order. i) Second Appeal No. 408 of 2012 and Second Appeal No. 415 of 2012 stand dismissed. ii) No order as to costs. iii) Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. 27. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Gilda and Mr. Naik pray for continuation of interim order for a period of six weeks so that the appellants can move the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The prayer is strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 on the ground that the appellants would take policy decision and may make fresh appointments during the period of continuation of interim order. Learned counsel Mr. Naik appearing on behalf of the appellants in Appeal No. 408 of 2012, on instructions from his clients, has submitted that no fresh appointment on regular basis or permanent basis will be made. Appointments which are absolutely necessary will be made on contract basis only. In my opinion, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants is reasonable particularly when a statement is made on behalf of the appellants. Hence, I am inclined to continue the interim order passed by this Court for a period of six weeks from tomorrow. Order accordingly.