Judgment G.B. SHAH, J. The present Special Civil Applications have been filed by the petitioners under Arts. 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India and also under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 challenging the order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013. 2. Rule. Heard Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned Advocate for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3278 of 2013 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Shelat with learned Advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3556 of 2013 and Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 in both the Special Civil Applications and Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 in both the above-referred Special Civil Applications. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have fairly submitted that both the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply in Special Civil Application No. 3278 of 2013 respectively and the same shall be treated as their affidavit-in-reply for Special Civil Application No. 3556 of 2013. As identical issue is involved in both the above referred Special Civil Applications the same are disposed of by way of this common judgment. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners are Satsangi and are the follower of Swaminarayan Sampraday. The petitioners have been donating substantial amount every year to the respondent No. 1 - Trust and they are also voters in the Trust. The respondent No.1 - Trust is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioners that as there have been large-scale irregularities including manipulation in the list of persons who have given dharmada the petitioners and some other persons filed application being Application No. 41/18/2011 before the Joint Charity Commissioner under the provisions of Sec. 41A of the Act seeking certain directions. The petitioners submit that by order dated 22-7-2011, the Joint Charity Commissioner issued certain directions to the respondent No. 1 - Trust. Thereafter, the Joint Charity Commissioner has passed further bi-partite order on 24-8-2012. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent No. 1 - Trust filed Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 before this High Court. The petitioners submit that by order dated 22-7-2011, the Joint Charity Commissioner issued certain directions to the respondent No. 1 - Trust. Thereafter, the Joint Charity Commissioner has passed further bi-partite order on 24-8-2012. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent No. 1 - Trust filed Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 before this High Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 11-3-2013 held that the Joint Charity Commissioner was competent to entertain the Application No. 41/18/2011 and. rejected the petition challenging the order dated 24-8-2012 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 - Trust was proceeding further without complying the directions issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner and as confirmed by this Court, the petitioners filed application Exh. 85 dated 14-3-2013 in Application No. 41/18/2011 before the Joint Charity Commissioner seeking further directions. The Joint Charity Commissioner vide order dated 14-3-2013 issued certain directions to the respondent No. 1 - Trust on the application Exh. 85. The respondent-trust moved the learned Principal District Judge and the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar has passed the impugned order dated 16-3-2013 in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013. This order is challenged in these petitions. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Navin Pahwa has submitted that the learned Principal District Judge is not competent to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for the reliefs prayed therein and the impugned order dated 16-3-2013 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 is wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that the said impugned order dated 16-3-2013 is non-est and contrary to the order dated 14-3-2013 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner below Application Exh. 85. Learned Advocate has vehemently argued the question of jurisdiction of the learned Principal District Judge by reading Sec. 56A of the Act and submitted that under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act reasonable opportunity of being heard to all persons connected with the issues involved should have been given by the learned Principal District Judge. He submitted that in the present case, neither any notice nor any opportunity of being heard is given to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner before passing the impugned order. He submitted that in the present case, neither any notice nor any opportunity of being heard is given to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner before passing the impugned order. It is his argument that the impugned order dated 16-3-2013 is contrary to the orders dated 22-7-2011 and 24-8-2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Joint Charity Commissioner which were confirmed by the order dated 11-3-2013 by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012. He submitted that the impugned order dated 16-3-2013 as such is tantamount to overreaching the process of this Court and is thus liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that this Court has already held that the Joint Charity Commissioner is competent to entertain the application filed by the present petitioners filed under Sec. 41A of the Act against the respondent No. 1 - Trust, and therefore, the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner are final. He finally submitted that the petitioners has a strong prima facie case on merits, and therefore, this Special Civil Application be allowed as prayed for. 4.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Shelat appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3556 of 2013 has submitted that the respondent No.1 should file Misc. Civil Application for amendment of the Election Rules so as to change the time schedule related to election before the Principal District Judge and the Principal District Judge should proceed further as provided in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act. Referring to prayer Para 8(a) on page No. 17, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that respondent No. 1 has sought approval of the time schedule already prepared and annexed with as Annexure-A of the said proceeding. As such respondent No.1 should seek direction of the Principal District Judge as to how the election should be proceeded further in view of stay order passed by respondent No.2. As such respondent No.1 should seek direction of the Principal District Judge as to how the election should be proceeded further in view of stay order passed by respondent No.2. By seeking approval as sought for in prayer Para 8(a) at page No. 17, respondent No. 1 has overcome the directions given by the In-charge Joint Charity Commissioner i.e. respondent No.2, and hence, the impugned order dated 16-3-2013 is contrary to the orders dated 22-7-2011 and 24-8-2012 passed by respondent No.2, which were confirmed by the order dated 11-3-2013 passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 and so the same should be set aside. 5. Referring the affidavit-in-reply of Harjibhai Nanjibhai Bhimani dated 21-3-2013 filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - Trust, learned Advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya for the respondent No.1 has vehemently submitted that the petitioners is guilty of suppressing the material facts, and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. It is submitted that no person can file a petition against an order which is obtained by the said person in his own favour and the petitioners cannot be said to be an aggrieved person by the order passed either by the Joint Charity Commissioner or by the learned Principal District Judge. It is further submitted that despite the fact that the present respondent No.1 is party in the proceedings pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, and though in the memo of the Misc. Civil Application dated 14-3-2013 filed in the Application No. 41/18/2011, the respondents have been joined as party respondents, the Joint Charity Commissioner passed ex-parte order granting the application by giving direction that no further process related to new voters' list shall be undertaken unless appropriate approval or sanction has been obtained from the District Court. This order is in favour of the petitioners and the same is not challenged in the present proceedings. Respondent No. 1 has acted as per the order dated 14-3-2013 referred above and preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 on 16-3-2013 and the learned Principal District Judge has passed the interim order dated 16-3-2013, which is challenged by the petitioners stating that the same is passed without jurisdiction by the learned Principal District Judge. Respondent No. 1 has acted as per the order dated 14-3-2013 referred above and preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 on 16-3-2013 and the learned Principal District Judge has passed the interim order dated 16-3-2013, which is challenged by the petitioners stating that the same is passed without jurisdiction by the learned Principal District Judge. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners is approbating and reprobating at the same time and as the petitioners cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, these petitions should be dismissed. It is also submitted that no election process be continued prior to sanction by the District Court, and therefore, it was decided by the respondent No. 1 to approach the District Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners knowing very well that certain directions were given by the Charity Commissioner to produce all relevant records in the office on or before 22-3-2013 and thus once there is an order of compliance of an earlier order in a time bound period the said time has not expired and so, the question of seeking further direction or further relief from the higher forum does not arise, and accordingly, this petition is not maintainable. As the documents directed to be produced before the Joint Charity Commissioner have already been produced, the relief prayed for in the petition has become infructuous. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 that there were four petitioners and eight respondents before the Joint Charity Commissioner and none of those persons has been joined as respondent in this petition and thus the petition deserves to be dismissed for non-joining of necessary parties. Lastly, it is submitted that on account of joining multiple causes of action, i.e. the petition is preferred against the order passed by the District Court, Bhavnagar and is also for implementation of the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, two separate independent orders cannot be clubbed together in one petition and on that ground alone, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Referring the affidavit-in-reply dated 28-3-2013 of Chandrakant Jesinghbhai Patel, In-charge Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot, the learned Advocate Mr. 6. Referring the affidavit-in-reply dated 28-3-2013 of Chandrakant Jesinghbhai Patel, In-charge Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot, the learned Advocate Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya for respondent No.2 has submitted that the jurisdiction of the learned Principal District Judge is limited only for the purpose of aspects which specifically form part of the scheme. In the present case, the Principal District Judge would only be having limited jurisdiction as to whether the time frame prescribed for the purpose of conducting elections can be modified looking to the fact that various litigations were pending since long and there is a delay in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 has then submitted that the provisions of Sec. 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 which have been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the respondent No.1 herein has supplied various documents in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner. However, the aspect is to whether the orders passed earlier have been complied with or not is a subject-matter of scrutiny which the petitioners herein will have to undertake and will have to file an appropriate report before the respondent No.2. In accordance with the scrutiny undertaken by the petitioners herein, the authority would verify the said document and scrutinize the same for the purpose of coming to a clear unambiguous conclusion as to whether the order has been complied with or not. 7. I have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and others have preferred application for appropriate orders under Sec. 41A of the Act seeking various reliefs and directions to grant inspection of the accounts pertaining to dharmada of Samvat years 2064, 2065 and 2066 respectively (years 2008, 2009 and 2010 A.D.) received by respondent No. 1 on 16-6-2011 which was registered vide Application No. 41/18/2011. On the basis of income receipts of dharmada, respondent No. 1 - Trust formulates voters' lists in accordance with the Election Rules. The said Application No. 41/18/2011 was filed by the petitioners and others on the allegations and apprehensions that the accounts of the respondent No. 1 - Trust does not reflect the correct and true state of affairs regarding dharmada offered by various devotees and knowingly, purposely and consciously dodging the receipts so as to deny their voting rights. The said Application No. 41/18/2011 was filed by the petitioners and others on the allegations and apprehensions that the accounts of the respondent No. 1 - Trust does not reflect the correct and true state of affairs regarding dharmada offered by various devotees and knowingly, purposely and consciously dodging the receipts so as to deny their voting rights. The petitioners herein have also prayed to grant relief of inspection of the accounts and for further appropriate orders in the said proceeding i.e. Application No. 41/18/2011. The concerned Officials of the Charity Commissioners office had only granted interim relief directing respondent No. 1 - Trust to produce the books of accounts and grant inspection of the accounts for the relevant years. Respondent No. 1 - Trust had challenged the said order directing production of books, documents, granting inspection and access to the dharmada accounts for the relevant years which would provide voting rights to the devotees by preferring Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012. The said Special Civil Application filed by respondent No. 1 - Trust has been dismissed and the High Court has held that the Joint Charity Commissioner is competent to entertain the application filed by the present petitioners under Sec. 41A of the Act against respondent No. 1 - Trust. 7.1. As referred above, the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 filed by the present respondent No.1 was dismissed by order dated 11-3-2013. On the next day i.e. on 12-3-2013 the preliminary voters' list has been published by respondent No. 1 - Trust as shown on page No. 170. Moreover, in Saurashtra Samachar dated 13-3-2013, the public notice related to election has also been published, and accordingly, the petitioners have preferred the application Exh. 85 dated 14-3-2013 before the respondent No. 2. The copy of which is at page Nos. 78 to 84 and the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner was also passed on the same day i.e. on 14-3-2013 by respondent No.2, copy of which is at pages No. 85 to 89. 8. Referring the said order dated 14-3-2013 at page No. 89 passed by respondent No. 2 herein, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 - Trust has mainly submitted that though the ex-parte order granting application at Exh. 8. Referring the said order dated 14-3-2013 at page No. 89 passed by respondent No. 2 herein, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 - Trust has mainly submitted that though the ex-parte order granting application at Exh. 85 has been passed by the respondent No.2 to the effect that no further process related to new voters' list shall be undertaken unless appropriate approval or sanction has been obtained from the Principal District Judge. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 - Trust has acted as per the said ex-parte order dated 14-3-2013 and preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 on 16-3-2013 before the Court of learned Principal District Judge at Bhavnagar and the learned Principal District Judge has passed interim order by which he has given necessary directions along with which he has fixed the date of 20-3-2013 inviting objections if any directing to remain present on 20-3-2013. The order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge below Exh. 1 in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 reads as under : "1. The present petition has been submitted by the Trust popularly known as Gopinathji Dev Mandir Trust. In the capacity of the Chairman of the Trust, Mr. Harjibhai has submitted an application pertaining to Rule 12 of the Scheme No. 1/75 as framed by the District Judge especially Clauses 46 and 48. Looking to the Rule 12, it has been provided the procedure for holding the election of the Trustees and various procedure has been framed in the scheme as well as Rules framed. Due to some litigation before the Hon'ble High Court and petition filed in the Hon'ble High Court and judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court on 11-3-2013, some specific time-bound schedule has been affected. In such circumstances, trustees have passed one Resolution and the schedule of the election is proposed to modify, subject to the permission of the District Judge, as he is the author of the scheme. Hence, the present petition has been filed and the Schedule-A which has been attached along with the petition on the basis of the Resolution of the Board that they are desirous to hold the election process as per the schedule as shown. 2. Hence, the present petition has been filed and the Schedule-A which has been attached along with the petition on the basis of the Resolution of the Board that they are desirous to hold the election process as per the schedule as shown. 2. At this juncture, one thing is to be kept in mind that rights of the voters should not be affected, that is the main criteria, which is required to be taken into consideration. Before we may give the permission, according to the Schedule-A as provided in the petition, for the purpose of smooth functioning of the election process, it will be just and proper to give some ad-interim directions and/or relief so that it may not cause any misunderstanding to the public at large and the Gopinathji Dev Mandir Trust may be permitted to receive objections against the preliminary voters' list upto 26-3-2013 and no any decision on objections will be taken without prior permission of this Court. Simultaneously, this matter is listed for further hearing on 20-3-2013. The Gopinathji Dev Mandir Trust is at liberty to highlight this direction in the news media so that it may not cause any misunderstanding to the voters. Moreover, if any person has got any objection, they are at liberty to come and/or remain present in this Court on 20-3-2013." 8.1. Learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 - Trust has then submitted that it is not under dispute that the petitioners have obtained ex-parte order dated 14-3-2013 from respondent No.2 at page No. 89 in their favour and as such as per the directions given in the said ex-parte order dated 14-3-2013 passed by the respondent No.2, the respondent No. 1 - Trust has preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 before the Court of Principal District Judge under Clauses 46 and 48 of the Scheme, then respondent No. 1 has failed to understand that what wrong has been committed by respondent No. 1 - Trust for which the petitioners herein have made hue and cry and filed the present petitions on 19-3-2013 that too prior to 20-3-2013 on which date the learned Principal District Judge was going to decide objections if any, raised by the concerned persons. Above referred Clauses 46 and 48 of the Scheme which are narrated in Para 4 of the application Exh. 1 of Misc. Above referred Clauses 46 and 48 of the Scheme which are narrated in Para 4 of the application Exh. 1 of Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 at page No. 16 filed by the respondent No. 1 - Trust reads as under : "46. The Board shall have power from time to time make such Rules and Regulations as it may think fit and proper for the administration and carrying into effect all the provisions of this scheme and to provide for the management of the trust properties and also from time to time alter any such rules or regulations or to repeal any of them and substitute (sic.) others in their place : PROVIDED always that no such rules or regulations framed or subsequently amended shall in any manner be inconsistent with any of the clauses of this scheme or of the Act the Rules thereunder : PROVIDED further that the Rules in respect of the election of the Board shall not be affected without the sanction of the District Court. 48. Any two members of the Board, the Acharya or any two satsangis, two tyagis or the Charity Commissioner shall be entitled to apply to the District Court for directions and/or modification, alteration or variation of this scheme." 9. It is also the submission of the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 that once the petitioners have obtained ex-parte order dated 14-3-2013 at page No. 89 in his favour, and accordingly, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person by order passed either by respondent No.2 or by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar because as per the directions given by respondent No.2, the respondent No. 1 has complied with the same and the learned Principal District Judge has passed order dated 16-3-2013, then in that case, the petitioners cannot challenge the same stating that the same is passed without jurisdiction by the learned Principal District Judge. 9.1. 9.1. During the course of their submissions, learned Advocates for the petitioners have categorically submitted that as such, it is not the case of the petitioners that the learned Principal District Judge has no jurisdiction but according to their submissions the learned Principal District Judge has limited jurisdiction to decide whether the time schedule prescribed for the purpose of elections can be modified looking to the fact that various litigations were pending before the respondent No.2 and there is a delay in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. According to the learned Advocates for the petitioners, respondent No. 1 - Trust should file Misc. Civil Application for amendment of the election rules so as to change the time schedule related to election and the learned Principal District Judge is duty-bound to proceed further in accordance with Sec. 56A of the Act. Section 56A of the Act reads as under : "56A. Powers of trustee to apply for directions :- (1) Save as hereinbefore provided in this Act, any trustee of a public trust may apply to the Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate, for the opinion, advice or direction of the Court on any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property or income thereof, and the Court shall give its opinion, advice, or direction, as the case may be, thereon. : Provided that the Court shall not be bound to give such opinion, advice or direction on any question which it considers to be a question not proper for summary disposal. (2) The Court, on an application under sub-sec. (1) may give its opinion, advice or direction thereon after giving notice to the Charity Commissioner. The Court before giving any opinion, advice or direction shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all persons appearing in connection with the application. (3) A trustee stating in good faith the facts of any matter relating to the trust in an application under sub-sec. (1), and acting upon the opinion, advice or direction of the Court given thereon, shall be deemed, as far as his own responsibility is concerned, to have discharged his duty as such trustee in the matter in respect of which the application was made. (4) No appeal shall lie against any opinion, advice or direction given under this Section." 10. (1), and acting upon the opinion, advice or direction of the Court given thereon, shall be deemed, as far as his own responsibility is concerned, to have discharged his duty as such trustee in the matter in respect of which the application was made. (4) No appeal shall lie against any opinion, advice or direction given under this Section." 10. From the above submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, it is clear that as per the order granting application Exh. 85, respondent No.2 has passed order dated 14-3-2013 at page 89 to the effect that no further process related to new voters' list published on 12-3-2013 by respondent No. 1 - Trust shall be undertaken unless approval or sanction has been obtained from the District Court. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 - Trust has preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 on 16-3-2013. The main question to be decided is whether the said Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 filed by respondent No. 1 seeking only approval of time schedule of election is maintainable without seeking any relief for amendment of the election rules prepared under the scheme at page 167 more particularly when litigations between the parties is pending before the respondent No. 2 as narrated above. The second question to be decided is whether the order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at page Nos. 19 and 20 is tenable more particularly when it is alleged to have been passed in breach of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act i.e. without issuing notice to the Charity Commissioner, respondent No.2 and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all those persons appearing in connection with the said application more particularly when the various litigations are pending as narrated by respondent No. 1 in Paras 6 and 7 of Civil Misc. Application No. 38 of 2013. 10.1. Regarding the main question whether Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 seeking only approval of time schedule is maintainable or not, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 - Trust does not want modification or amendment in the election rules prepared under the scheme at page No. 167. Application No. 38 of 2013. 10.1. Regarding the main question whether Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 seeking only approval of time schedule is maintainable or not, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 - Trust does not want modification or amendment in the election rules prepared under the scheme at page No. 167. As per the submission of the learned Advocate for respondent No.1, vide order dated 14-3-2013 respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.1 to obtain appropriate approval or sanction from the District Court, and accordingly, respondent No. 1 had preferred the said Application No. 38 of 2013 on 16-3-2013 for seeking necessary direction by annexing tentative time-schedule for approval of the same because the learned Principal District Judge was not to fix time schedule because as per the scheme, respondent No. 1 was duty-bound to fix the time-schedule. In short, as per the submission of respondent No. 1, the time-schedule has already been fixed in the scheme, but because of the pending litigation, the said time schedule related to election has not been maintained and even otherwise Clause 48 of the Scheme also says that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to apply to the Court for necessary direction and while seeking direction contemplated in Clause 48 of the Scheme, respondent No. 1 has to give a tentative time-schedule to refix the election. Moreover according to the learned Advocate for respondent No.1, the learned Principal District Judge himself has issued ad-interim direction and permitted respondent No.1 to invite objection against the preliminary voters' list giving further direction to respondent No. 1 to highlight the same in the news media so that it may not cause any misunderstanding to the voters. Moreover, liberty has also been given to the effect that if any person has got any objection, he is at liberty to come and/or to remain present in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge on 20-3-2013, and accordingly, approximately 18 objections were received in pursuance of the public notice issued by respondent No. 1 - Trust, and hence, there is no breach of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act has been committed by the concerned Principal District Judge and accordingly these petitions are not tenable and sustainable. 11. As referred in Para 1 of the order dated 16-3-2013 passed below Exh. 1 in Misc. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act has been committed by the concerned Principal District Judge and accordingly these petitions are not tenable and sustainable. 11. As referred in Para 1 of the order dated 16-3-2013 passed below Exh. 1 in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013, the learned Principal District Judge has categorically stated that in the capacity of the Chairman of the Trust, Mr. Harjibhai has submitted the said application pertaining to Rule 12 of the Scheme 1/75 as framed by the District Judge especially under Clause Nos. 46 and 48. Thus, it is clear that learned Principal District Judge was well aware of the Clauses 46 and 48 reproduced by respondent No. 1 in Para 4 of the said Misc. Civil Application. As referred above, learned Principal District Judge was also aware that in the capacity of the Chairman of the Trust, Mr. Harjibhai alone has submitted the said Civil Application on behalf of the Trust. According to the submission of the learned Advocates for the petitioners, learned Principal District Judge cannot overlook the provisions of Clause No. 48 of the scheme more particularly when he has referred the same in his order and the said Clause 48 of the scheme was readily available at Para 4 of the said Misc. Civil Application. Referring to Clause 48 of the scheme, it is clear that any two members of the Board, the Acharya or any two satsangis, two tyagis or the Charity Commissioner shall be entitled to apply to the District Court for directions and/or modification, alteration or variation of this scheme. Even for getting any direction under Clause 48 of the scheme only two persons i.e. one of the categories of the persons as narrated therein are entitled/required to prefer Misc. Civil Application before the District Court. Referring the cause title of the Misc. Even for getting any direction under Clause 48 of the scheme only two persons i.e. one of the categories of the persons as narrated therein are entitled/required to prefer Misc. Civil Application before the District Court. Referring the cause title of the Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 and as observed by the learned Principal District Judge in his order dated 16-3-2013 in the capacity of Chairman of the respondent No. 1 - Trust, only Harjibhai alone has filed the said application and so the said application, prima facie, is not maintainable because the same has not been preferred by any two persons i.e. one of the categories of persons as required and mentioned in Clause 48 of the scheme and without considering the said aspect though appears technical, learned Principal District Judge cannot overlook and proceeded further with the said Misc. Civil Application and should not have passed any order and should have insisted presence of two persons as mentioned in the said Clause 48 of the scheme more particularly when the learned Principal District Judge is aware of the fact that he is the author of the scheme and thus the Misc. Civil Application is not maintainable is the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners and there appears force and merit in the said submission. 11.1. Referring the cause title of the said Misc. Civil Application, it also appears that the respondent No. 1 - Trust herein has not joined the Charity Commissioner as required under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that considering the fact that various litigations are pending between the parties, to show bona fides of respondent No. 1 - Trust, it should have joined the Charity Commissioner as well as the petitioners who have filed application under Sec. 41A of the Act which is pending before respondent No. 2. Referring sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act, though respondent No. 1 original applicant of Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 has not joined the Charity Commissioner, it is the bounden-duty of the Principal District Judge who has conducted the matter relating to Public Trust that on receiving application under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 56A prior to passing any ad-interim order, he should have given prior notice to the Charity Commissioner under sub-sec. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 has not joined the Charity Commissioner, it is the bounden-duty of the Principal District Judge who has conducted the matter relating to Public Trust that on receiving application under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 56A prior to passing any ad-interim order, he should have given prior notice to the Charity Commissioner under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A and the breach of the same cannot be taken lightly more particularly when the learned Principal District Judge is very well aware of the fact that due to some litigations before the High Court and judgment delivered by the High Court on 11-3-2013 some specific time bound schedule has been affected related to election and so the Trustees have passed Resolution and the schedule of the election is proposed to be modified subject to the permission of the District Judge as he is the author of the scheme. In my view, the author of the scheme has failed to discharge his duty in not issuing prior notice which is mandatory under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act, more particularly when the author is in knowledge of the observations made in Paras 29 and 30 of the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 as reproduced hereunder: "29. As recorded hereinabove and as could be revealed from the papers, the background of facts is that the donations, which are received, for which the receipts are required to be issued from such books will have the record of the donors Satsangi or the others who have given the contribution. Those who have contributed in this manner for a period of 5 years would be the eligible voters as provided in the rules framed under the scheme known as Administration of Shree Gopinathji Dev Gadhda Mandir as per the order of the District Court in Trust Suit No. 1 of 1975. It is in this scheme the Election Rules and the preparation of electoral roll is provided. It has also reference to the area and other qualification that such voters must have age of 21 years, and as a Tyagi, they must be residing in the temple or any other temple under the control of Shree Gopinathji Temple. The Gruhast voter should have contributed continuously for a period of five years, and thereafter, he could be eligible to be a voter. The Gruhast voter should have contributed continuously for a period of five years, and thereafter, he could be eligible to be a voter. The schedule is also mentioned Moha Sud - 15, which is providing for preparing the list. The contentions have been raised with regard to the manipulation in the books while collecting such donations and recording the names of such satsangi or donors to the exclusion of others which would rule out many persons who have contributed to be eligible as a voter and including many persons who would otherwise not be eligible as a voter. It is in this background, earlier, the applications have been made to the District Court, Bhavnagar vide Misc. Civil Application No. 140 of 2011 and also Misc. Civil Application No. 216 of 2009. In spite of such applications, when the grievance persisted, the office of the Charity Commissioner has been moved by the application, on which, initially the order was passed dated 22-7-2011 at Annexure-G. Thereafter, the objections were filed, and after considering the objection and other material and the submission, the impugned order dated 24-8-2012 came to be passed, which is challenged in the present petition. Thus, though the grievance of the people resisted with regard to the issue and abuse as well as irregularity, collection of donations and the issuance of the receipts in the manner that in a selected manner the persons could be made a voter so as to serve the purpose during the election at the end of five years. This grievance when made to the office of the Charity Commissioner by order dated 22-7-2011, a direction was issued to submit the necessary material. In spite of this order, there is no compliance with the same and the order is also not challenged by the Petitioners, which again reflect the attitude that irrespective of the order passed by the competent authority, they would continue with the affairs so as to fulfill their ulterior motive. This has led to filing of an application and as stated in the petition, the petitioners also filed an application for vacating the ex-parte order dated 22-7-2011. The same has been considered, meaning thereby, all the objections/submissions have been considered and the impugned order came to be passed. This has led to filing of an application and as stated in the petition, the petitioners also filed an application for vacating the ex-parte order dated 22-7-2011. The same has been considered, meaning thereby, all the objections/submissions have been considered and the impugned order came to be passed. It would make the things clear as a daylight that the submission made about the violation of rules of natural justice that an opportunity has not been given and an ex-parte order is purported to be obtained, is without any merit and is contrary to the record. Further, during this period as there is no compliance, it would reflect that irrespective of the direction of the competent authority, the petitioners would continue their activities, so that, ultimately, at the time of election, in future, those who are making grievance, would met with the fait accompli that now the voters' list has become final, the election programme has announced, the process has started. It is in this background of facts, now the submission made by learned Counsel Shri Mangukiya is required to be appreciated. Though, the submissions have been made that the impugned order of the Joint Charity Commissioner under Sec. 41A of the Act is without authority and is illegal, the same is required to be considered in background of the facts stated hereinabove. While making an application for vacating the order and raising the objection, it would reveal that the petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner. Thereafter, in an application for vacating the order having failed after bi-partite hearing, such a petition has been filed raising all such contentions only to avoid placing the relevant material before the competent authority and allowing the time to pass. Again, it is only with an object that the so-called voters' list is prepared in the manner they desire and there could not be an interference in the process. Thereafter, when the date is fixed and the programme is announced, the contention can be raised that now the election process has started. Therefore, the submissions have been made by learned Counsel Shri Mangukiya with much emphasis that Sec. 22 of the Act is a complete Code and answer to the grievance made by the respondents and all election matters are required to be considered as per Sec. 22 of the Act and not under Sec. 41A of the Act, is misconceived. Therefore, the submissions have been made by learned Counsel Shri Mangukiya with much emphasis that Sec. 22 of the Act is a complete Code and answer to the grievance made by the respondents and all election matters are required to be considered as per Sec. 22 of the Act and not under Sec. 41A of the Act, is misconceived. As could be seen from the scheme of the Act, Sec. 41 of the Act is empowering the Charity Commissioner for his exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in respect of every Trust registered under the Act with the office of the Charity Commissioner. It gives an overall supervisory power with regard to the management of affairs of the Trust. In other words, the scope of Sec. 41A of the Act is much wider as it refers to any matter which touches the affairs of the Trust. Learned Counsel Shri Shelat has therefore rightly submitted that what is at the root of the matter is the administration of the Trust and the exercise of power in respect of any matter which touches the affairs of the management of the Trust. Therefore, analysing the provisions of Sec. 41A of the Act, vis-a-vis Sec. 22, the two Division Bench of this Court have specifically made the observations, which have been read at length by both the sides. The observations made by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : R.K. Abichandani and D.H. Waghela, 11.) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2 of 2004 is referring to the earlier judgment reported in 1992 (1) GLH 332 (supra) referred to by learned Counsel Shri Mangukiya, specifically and clearly made the observation that Sec. 41 of the Act can be resorted in a given situation and it cannot be said that there is any bar to exercise of such jurisdiction or the powers by the Charity Commissioner. In fact Sec. 22 of the Act is confined to or relate to only election matters, whereas Sec. 41 of the Act has much wider scope when any matter touching the affairs of the management of the Trust is required to be examined. The provisions of Sec. 22 of the Act will come into play only from the stage when the elections are to be held after the election programme is announced. Therefore, it will come into play in respect of elections matters. The provisions of Sec. 22 of the Act will come into play only from the stage when the elections are to be held after the election programme is announced. Therefore, it will come into play in respect of elections matters. Sec. 41A of the Act refers to the exercise of power when it touches the affairs of the management of the Trust, which may include variety of issues like the present case. In other words, the issues involved is not the election matter as it refers to the issues regarding the affairs of the Trust at a stage prior to the election. As per the scheme of the present Trust, the schedule is fixed, like Maha Vad Poonam the election has to be held every five years and it is in this background when there are irregularities with regard to the aspect of donations, which in turn have a bearing on the eligibility of the voters, would touch the affairs of the management of the Trust. The issue involved is, a stage prior to the election or the election matter, and therefore, when the Rules or the criteria as to how the donations should be collected on issuance of receipt, the manner of the recording of receipts and also the area that who could be considered as eligible voter by giving donation, whether it should be confined to a particular area or the place where he is attending to the same temple of Gopinathji Mandir or any temple subordinate to it or whether a person, who is affected like satsangi, should have contributed/donated continuously for a period of five years, are the matters where the grievances have been made, which required the scrutiny of the Charity Commissioner with reference to such rules or the procedures prescribed by the scheme of the Trust. It may have a relevance for the necessary clarification or the amendment. Therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner had initially only passed an order on 22-7-2011 calling upon the present petitioners to submit some documents or the material. Thereafter, as discussed above, after a hi-partite hearing also, the directions have been issued. It, therefore, reflects that the petitioner does not want a fair-play and wanted to play hide and seek to withheld the information to serve the purpose for the election. Thereafter, as discussed above, after a hi-partite hearing also, the directions have been issued. It, therefore, reflects that the petitioner does not want a fair-play and wanted to play hide and seek to withheld the information to serve the purpose for the election. Therefore, when the two Division Bench have made the observations referring to the scope of Sec. 41 and when the necessary directions have been issued even after the objections have been filed by the petitioners, there is no reason to entertain such a petition on the ground that the order is arbitrary, illegal or without jurisdiction. In fact as per the concept of pari delicto. One who has committed a wrong cannot come forward and heard to say that somebody has committed a wrong. One cannot take advantage of his own misdeeds by raising such bogie of violation of rules of natural justice or the scope of Sec. 41 or the exercise of power being arbitrary and illegal. It is worthwhile to note the observations made by the Division Bench (Coram : R.K. Abichandani and D.H. Waghela, JJ.) : "5. The Court has neither in Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (supra) or in Navinchandra Jasani (supra) laid down that the powers under Sec. 41 A cannot be exercised in any context other than the provisions of Secs. 32 to 41 of the Act. In fact, in Paras 41 and 42 of the decision in Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (supra), the Division Bench has clearly held that the directions contemplated by Sec. 41A were administrative in character and such directions are required to be issued for better and more efficient administration of public trust." 30. Therefore, the submissions made by learned Counsel Shri Mangukiya that Sec. 41 of the Act cannot be resorted to is misconceived. In fact, it cannot be said to be only an election matter because that stage has not yet reached. The grievance made by the respondents is with regard to the irregularity in managing the affairs of the Trust, which may have a bearing for the purpose of deciding the eligibility of the voters as per the scheme. In fact, it cannot be said to be only an election matter because that stage has not yet reached. The grievance made by the respondents is with regard to the irregularity in managing the affairs of the Trust, which may have a bearing for the purpose of deciding the eligibility of the voters as per the scheme. It is at this stage, they have been making grievance right from 2011, and therefore, the Charity Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Sec. 41 of the Act, has called for the information, which cannot be said to be erroneous or without jurisdiction." Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that public notice was issued in light of the order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge to all concerned and whoever wants to participate in the said proceeding they can do so including the present respondent No. 2. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 because in my view, breach of mandatory provisions of the Act referred above cannot be taken so lightly as has been taken by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar. Second part of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 56A of the Act speaks about affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to all persons appearing in connection with the application should be given by the learned Principal District Judge before giving any opinion, advice or direction. On 16-3-2013, the order under challenge has been passed by the learned Principal District Judge. It is submitted by the learned Advocates for the petitioners that as per the said order, the persons who have objections should remain present in the Court on 20-3-2013 and for inviting the objections, four days time is given which cannot be said to be reasonable opportunity given by the learned Judge. There appears force in the said submission. While discharging the duty as author of the scheme of respondent No. 1 - Trust, more maturity, care and caution is expected from the learned Principal District Judge, more particularly when the respondent No.2 has stayed the public notice dated 13-3-2013 published by respondent No.1 in Saurashtra Samachar. There appears force in the said submission. While discharging the duty as author of the scheme of respondent No. 1 - Trust, more maturity, care and caution is expected from the learned Principal District Judge, more particularly when the respondent No.2 has stayed the public notice dated 13-3-2013 published by respondent No.1 in Saurashtra Samachar. When the application No. 41/18/2011 filed on 16-6-2011 by the petitioners before respondent No.2 well in advance 1½ years prior to the publication of preliminary voters' list on 12-3-2013 and when the order dated 24-8-2012 passed by respondent No.2 has been challenged by respondent No. 1 - Trust and it has travelled upto this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 which has been dismissed and the said order has ultimately attained its finality, then in such a situation, in my view, the learned Principal District Judge should not have granted ad-interim relief merely because it is asked for by respondent No. 1 - Trust. Under the above situation, care and caution which was required to be taken by author of the scheme, meaning thereby, the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar appears to have acted in flagrant violations of the provisions of the Act as referred above and the impugned order dated 16-3-2013 cannot stand for a minute, is the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. The above action of the learned Principal District Judge inspires no confidence of this Court and though the said order is carved out as ad-interim order, in my view, it is violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act as referred above. 12. On the point of jurisdiction of the District Court, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 - Trust has placed reliance on an unreported decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laljibhai Bhikhabhai Dhaduk v. Trust of the Temple of Shree Laxminarayan Dev Temple, dated 26-2-2010 in Misc. Civil Application (for Orders) No. 3154 of 2009 and submitted that in the said case this Court had formulated a scheme pursuant to the proceedings undertaken, under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Civil Application (for Orders) No. 3154 of 2009 and submitted that in the said case this Court had formulated a scheme pursuant to the proceedings undertaken, under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Division Bench of this Court has decided that scope of the said application in a proceeding which requires leading of evidence and examining the evidence would be procedure akin to trying of a suit in the High Court which appears to be a proposition which is unjustifiable, and accordingly, dismissed the same. The said decision was challenged vide Civil Appeal No. 3278 of 2011 (arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 7518 of 2010) and while setting aside the said order, Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 15-4-2011 has remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the modification application in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and further directed that if recording of evidence is necessary, the High Court may also record the evidence because the High Court has framed the scheme, and accordingly, held that the scheme which has been framed by the High Court, the District Judge cannot modify the same. 12.1. Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 - Trust has then submitted that in this case, the District Court, Bhavnagar had framed the scheme and so while passing order dated 16-3-2013, learned Principal District Judge has not exceeded the jurisdiction. Moreover, respondent No.2, vide his order dated 14-3-2013 has directed respondent No. 1 - Trust to approach the District Court. It is pertinent to note at the cost of repetition that it is not the say of the petitioners that the learned Principal District Judge has no jurisdiction for modification, alteration or variation of the scheme but according to the submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners, learned Principal District Judge has limited jurisdiction to decide whether the time schedule prescribed for the purpose of election in the scheme can be modified, looking to the fact that various crucial litigations were pending before respondent No. 2 and the delay occurred for the same. It is not under dispute that the scheme has been framed by the District Court, Bhavnagar and according to the same, so far as the election of respondent No. 1 - Trust is concerned, Rules for the same had also been framed at page No. 167. It is not under dispute that the scheme has been framed by the District Court, Bhavnagar and according to the same, so far as the election of respondent No. 1 - Trust is concerned, Rules for the same had also been framed at page No. 167. It is the fact that for any reason, the time schedule fixed for the scheme at page No. 167 has not been maintained, then in that circumstances, in my view, the Election Rules at page No. 167 is required to be modified, may be for the particular year and that too after hearing all the concerned by the learned Principal District Judge in the manner provided and discussed hereinabove. It is the fact that respondent No. 1 has sought prayer for approval of re-fixing of time schedule only by preferring Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 before the Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar. It is the fact that prayer for modification of Rules framed under the scheme has not been made. The Election Rules of respondent No. 1 - Trust are framed under the scheme at page No. 167 are in operation today. Unless and until, the Election Rules framed under the scheme are not modified, respondent No. 1 - Trust cannot proceed further in inviting objections or finalising the voters' list. Thus, without modification of the said Election Rules at page No. 167, the learned Principal District Judge cannot proceed further. The main submission of the learned Advocates for the petitioners is that the order under challenge dated 16-3-2013, as it stands today, which ultimately says that respondent No. 1 - Trust can go ahead and invite objections without seeking any modifications in the Election Rules framed under the scheme at page No. 167 is bad in law. The jurisdiction of the Principal District Judge, in my view, is limited and circumscribed jurisdiction essentially advisory and consultative in nature. The issue before the Principal District Judge is related to Public Trust. List of documents dated 16-3-2013 produced by the respondent No. 1 - Trust in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 is at Exh. 4. Vide Exh. 4, respondent No. 1 - Trust has produced in all 9 documents. The documents at Marks 4/4 and 4/5 are the orders passed by respondent No. 2. List of documents dated 16-3-2013 produced by the respondent No. 1 - Trust in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 is at Exh. 4. Vide Exh. 4, respondent No. 1 - Trust has produced in all 9 documents. The documents at Marks 4/4 and 4/5 are the orders passed by respondent No. 2. It is important to note that the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar was aware of the documents when he passed the order below Exh. 1 in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 dated 16-3-2013 which is under challenge. A combined reading of these documents shows that the petitioners herein have preferred Application No. 41/18/2011 filed on 16-6-2011 i.e. much in advance, at least 1½ years prior to the publication of the preliminary voters' list on 12-3-2013 by the respondent No.1. In the said Application No. 41/18/2011, the petitioners herein had alleged large-scale irregularities including manipulation in the list of persons who have given 'dharmada'. In the said Application No. 41/18/2011, respondent No.2 herein has passed order dated 24-8-2012 (Mark 4/9 referred above) directing respondent No. 1 - Trust to produce books of accounts and grant inspection of the accounts for the relevant years. Respondent No. 1 - Trust has challenged the said order dated 24-8-2012 before this Court vide Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 which has been dismissed vide order dated 11-3-2013 (copy of which is at Mark 4/5 referred above). The observations made in Paras 29 and 30 in the said order dated 11-3-2013 in Special Civil Application No. 11706 of 2012 have been reproduced hereinabove. Thus, it is clear that when the order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar is under challenge, the Principal District Judge was aware of the facts that the issues which have been raised on 16-6-2011 by the petitioners alleging large-scale irregularities including manipulation in the list of persons who have given 'dharmada' is yet not finalised and is pending before respondent No. 2 and the said issue has direct nexus with the allegations raised against respondent No. 1 - Trust. In spite of this, in breach of mandatory provisions of the Act, the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar has passed the order dated 16-3-2013 below Exh. 1 in Misc. In spite of this, in breach of mandatory provisions of the Act, the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar has passed the order dated 16-3-2013 below Exh. 1 in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 which is tantamount to overreaching the process of this Court, and in my view, the same is not tenable in the eye of law. The course adopted by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhavnagar is wholly illegal and contrary to the well settled principles of hierarchy of judicial forum. 12.2. Under the above referred circumstances, in my view, both the petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly they are allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The impugned order dated 16-3-2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge in Misc. Civil Application No. 38 of 2013 is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to dispose of Application No. 41/18/2011 pending before it, on merits as early as possible in accordance with law after giving appropriate opportunity to the concerned parties. (NRP) Petitions allowed.