JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as they challenge the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati and the learned District Judge-IV, Akola on 07/03/2017 and 05/01/2018 arising out of same change report to the extent they adversely affect the rights and interests of the petitioners in these two petitions. 3. It would be convenient to refer to the parties to the lis by some common nomenclature. There are 5 petitioners and 8 respondents in Writ Petition No.1110/2018. Out of 8 respondents, respondent Nos.7 & 8, being the Joint Charity Commissioner and the Assistant Charity Commissioner respectively, are the formal parties and respondent Nos.5 & 6 are the non-contesting parties. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are, however, the contesting parties and their contest is with petitioner Nos.1 to 5. Petitioner No.1 is a reporting trustee, who had filed a change report registered as Inquiry No.738/2013 under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act for short) before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola. In this inquiry, respondent Nos.1 to 4 had filed their objections, which they withdrew later on and gave their consent for acceptance of change report, which, however, was ignored by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner leading him to reject the change report bearing Inquiry No.738/2013 vide order passed on 29/12/2016. In Writ Petition No.1111/2018, there are two petitioners and 7 respondents. These 2 petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 & 7 are the persons, who have been joined as respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.1110/2018. In this petition, respondent No.4 is respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.1110/2018 and he is the non-contesting party. The remaining respondents are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1110/2018. As the real contest exists between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.1110/2018, who are also parties to Writ Petition No.1111/2018 in the manner stated earlier, the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.1110/2018, for the sake of convenience, shall now be referred to as the petitioners and the objectors. 4. As the real contest exists between the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.1110/2018, who are also parties to Writ Petition No.1111/2018 in the manner stated earlier, the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.1110/2018, for the sake of convenience, shall now be referred to as the petitioners and the objectors. 4. Now, it would be necessary for me to state a brief summary of the facts of the case and it is as under : i. The Bharat Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Akola (the 'Mandal' for short) is a registered society as well as a registered public trust. It is governed by it's Constitution framed by the bye-laws. It has four kinds of members viz. founder members, patrons, life members and ordinary members. As per bye-laws, the number of the members forming a group of founder members cannot exceed 11 at any point of time. Patrons are the members, who are interested in education and who contribute Rs.500/- or more and whose membership has been approved by the Governing Council of the Mandal. Life members are also the persons interested in education, but whose contribution is of Rs.100/- or more and their admission to membership is also subject to unanimous approval of Governing Council. Ordinary members too are the persons interested in education and who contribute Rs.12/- or more per year and whose membership is subject to unanimous approval of the Governing Council. The Governing Council of the Mandal is a body elected in the Special General Meeting of the Mandal and it comprises 7 members, out of which 4 members are elected by the members comprising founder members from amongst themselves and 3 members are elected in the Special General Meeting of the Mandal to be held in the month of April. The members of the Governing Council elect from amongst themselves the office bearers like President, Senior Vice-President, Junior Vice-President & Treasurer and 1 Secretary, while 3 persons remain as the ordinary members of the Governing Council. The term of the Governing Council is of three years. The Governing Council is responsible for managing the affairs of the Mandal in a manner consistent with the aims and objects of the Mandal. The powers and responsibilities of the General Body are also spelt out in the bye-laws. ii. The term of the Governing Council is of three years. The Governing Council is responsible for managing the affairs of the Mandal in a manner consistent with the aims and objects of the Mandal. The powers and responsibilities of the General Body are also spelt out in the bye-laws. ii. It is an admitted fact that in the year 1963, there were available all the 11 members, who comprised together the group called the “founder members”. It is also an admitted fact that there has been a gradual reduction in total number of the founder members after 1963 and in spite of the vacancies arising from time to time and in spite of the fact that as per the bye-laws, the remaining founder members could have filled up the vacancies created in the category of “founder members”, the vacancies were not filled up and the situation as it stood just before the election of 7 members of the Governing Council on 17/02/2013 was that only two founder members had remained alive. iii. In the year 2003, the election of the Governing Council had taken place and a meeting in that regard was held on 04/05/2003. A change report bearing Inquiry No. 759/2003 was, therefore, filed and it was not seriously disputed by the objectors and the result was that the change report came to be accepted on 29/04/2005. This Governing Council having been elected on 04/05/2003 held office as per the bye-laws for a period of 3 years, which expired on 03/05/2006. There were subsequent elections to the Governing Council, but it appears that the change reports in respect of those elections were not accepted. We are not concerned with them. Subject matter of scrutiny here is the change report filed by petitioner No.1 in respect of the election of 7 members of the Governing Council in the meeting of the General Body held on 17/02/2013, registered as Inquiry No.738/2013 and the manner it has been dealt with by the authorities below, rightly or wrongly. iv. Initially, objector Nos.1 to 4 filed their objections to the change report, but they withdrew the same later on. They also gave their 'no objection' for allowing the change report. The objectors even did not crossexamine the reporting trustee i.e. petitioner No.1. iv. Initially, objector Nos.1 to 4 filed their objections to the change report, but they withdrew the same later on. They also gave their 'no objection' for allowing the change report. The objectors even did not crossexamine the reporting trustee i.e. petitioner No.1. However, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola considering the evidence available on record, by his judgment and order, dated 29/12/2016 rejected the change report. He found that the election of 7 members of the Governing Council was not according to the procedure prescribed by the bye-laws and that some of the members i.e. those appearing from Sr. No.28 to 37 on the list of the members submitted to him by the reporting trustee, were illegally inducted as members and participation of such members vitiated the election process. v. The order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was challenged by the petitioners by preferring two appeals being Appeal No.5/2017 and Appeal No.2/2017 under Section 70 of the MPT Act before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati. vi. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati found that the newly inducted members, whose names appeared at Sr. No.28 to 35, were admitted to membership by the Executive Committee or the Governing Council on 30/11/2005 legally and properly and, therefore, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to this extent quashed and set aside the finding given by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. However, he agreed with the finding of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner regarding admission to membership by the Governing Council of those persons, whose names appeared at Sr. Nos.36, 37 & 38 of the list of members and found that these were the persons, who were not legally inducted as members and thus rejected their claim as valid members of the Mandal. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, however, also found that the reported change was not legal and valid and thus he agreed with the finding recorded in this behalf by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. He also rejected the contention that in the year 1976, there was amendment to Rule 7 of the Constitution, which altered the composition of the group of members called “founder members” and also the right of the founder members to elect from amongst themselves the members of the Governing Council. He also rejected the contention that in the year 1976, there was amendment to Rule 7 of the Constitution, which altered the composition of the group of members called “founder members” and also the right of the founder members to elect from amongst themselves the members of the Governing Council. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner held that this amendment having not been reported to the Assistant Charity Commissioner and having not been accepted as validly amending the bye-laws, would have no effect in the eye of law and, therefore, the relevant Rules as they stood on 17/02/2013 would only have to be considered to examine the question as to whether or not the elections to the Governing Council were legally and properly held, which question was, of course, answered as in the negative by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner thus dismissed the appeal but not failing to find that as a peculiar situation had arisen due to the provisions in the byelaws of the Mandal and reduction of the founder members from 11 to just 2, a direction was necessary to protect the interests of the Mandal and accordingly directed that the General Body Meeting of alive members at Exh.56 be called within one month by the then Secretary, Shri Madhusudan Pasarkar (Objector No.1), for electing new Governing Council vide his judgment and order, dated 07/03/2017. vii. The judgment and order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, dated 07/03/2017 gave rise to more wranglings between the petitioners and the objector Nos.1 to 4. These warring groups in between themselves filed 3 applications under Section 72 of the MPT Act challenging the judgment and order dated 07/03/2017 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati. These applications were M.J.C. Nos.60/2017, 61/2017 and 62/2017. The learned District Judge, Akola by his judgment and order, dated 05/01/2018 dismissed all these applications, though with a minor intervention. These warring groups in between themselves filed 3 applications under Section 72 of the MPT Act challenging the judgment and order dated 07/03/2017 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati. These applications were M.J.C. Nos.60/2017, 61/2017 and 62/2017. The learned District Judge, Akola by his judgment and order, dated 05/01/2018 dismissed all these applications, though with a minor intervention. The only intervention that was done by the learned District Judge, Akola was to quash and set aside the finding of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner that the elections held on 29/04/2005 to the Governing Council were contrary to the unamended provisions of the bye-laws of the Mandal on the ground that this finding of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner itself was inconsistent with his earlier finding that by these elections, the Governing Council was duly elected and legally and validly held the Office till 03/05/2006. viii. Writ Petition No.1110/2018 challenges both the orders, dated 07/03/2017 and 05/01/2018 respectively passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and the District Judge, Akola, while Writ Petition No.1111/2018 challenges the order dated 05/01/2018 passed by the District Judge, Akola. The grievance of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1110/2018 mainly is that the change report being Inquiry No.738/2013 has been improperly and illegally rejected by the authorities below and alternately it is also submitted that if the new elections to the Governing Council are to be held, they be held under the supervision of an independent Officer to be nominated by respondent No.7 or respondent No.8 and till that time, the interim arrangement made by the learned District Judge, Akola vide his order dated 11/01/2018 be continued. The grievance of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1111/2018, who are the objector Nos.1 & 2 in Writ Petition No.1110/2018, is quite limited. They are aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner to the effect that as per the bye-laws, the surviving founder members have no exclusive right to induct new members as founder members against the existing vacancies and that as per Rule 2 of the bye-laws, the Governing Council may refuse to admit any kind of membership without assigning any reason therefor. In other words, objector Nos. In other words, objector Nos. 1 & 2 are disturbed over of their being divested of what they consider as their exclusive power to fill up the vacancies of the members in the category of the “founder members” by selecting persons of their choice without any interference from the Governing Council. This finding of the Joint Charity Commissioner has been confirmed by the District Judge, Akola and, therefore, the objector Nos.1 & 2 in Writ Petition No.1111/2018 have prayed for setting aside the order of the learned District Judge, Akola and effectively also that of the Joint Charity Commissioner to this extent. 5. I have heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for objector Nos.1 & 2. I have also heard learned Counsel for objector Nos.3 & 4 and Ms. R.V. Kalia, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the authorities below viz. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner. The remaining parties have not contested the petitions, as stated earlier. I have also gone through the impugned orders and paper-books of the writ petitions. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are illegal and improper mainly for the reason that they do not take into consideration material facts which governed the fate of change report being Inquiry No.738/2013. According to him, in the year 1976, there was amendment to the bye-laws, by which the Constitution of the Governing Council was changed and also the power of the surviving members of the group called “founder members” to elect any person to fill up the vacancies of the founder members was altered. He submits that although it was a fact that this was not reported as change and accepted as such by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the elections to the Governing Council were held in terms of the amended bye-laws from time to time thereafter and most of those elections also received acceptance as proper changes from the Assistant Charity Commissioner. He submits that with such precedents present on record, there was no reason for the authorities below to have gone into the details of the bye-laws and find out some flaws in the present change report. He submits that with such precedents present on record, there was no reason for the authorities below to have gone into the details of the bye-laws and find out some flaws in the present change report. He also submits that the objector Nos.1 to 4 had already given their 'no objection' to accept the present change report after having withdrawn their respective objections and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities below to accept the present change report. Alternately, he submits that if for some reason it is not possible for this Court to upset the orders passed by the authorities below and accept the present change-report, the petitioners would abide by the direction of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to convene a General Body Meeting of alive members, whose names appeared from Sr. No.1 to 35 in the list of the members and elect new Governing Council, provided the General Body Meeting is convened not by the Secretary, the Objector No.1, but by an Officer nominated by either the Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Joint Charity Commissioner and the elections are held under the supervision of such nominated Officer. 7. Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for objector Nos.1 & 2 submits that the interpretation of the bye-laws made by the Joint Charity Commissioner and confirmed by the District Judge, Akola is completely erroneous insofar as it has the effect of removing exclusive power of the surviving founding members to admit any person as a founder member against the existing vacancies and subjecting such power of surviving founding members to the right of the Governing Council to refuse to admit any kind of membership. According to him, the right given to the Governing Council regarding refusal to admit any kind of membership is applicable only to 3 categories of members viz. the patrons, life members and ordinary members and such right under the bye-laws is not available in respect of the founder members category. He submits that this is the reason why admission to membership of 3 categories of the members viz. patrons, life members, and ordinary members has been made subject to unanimous approval of the Governing Council specifically and this is not so in respect of admission to membership of the category of the founder members. He submits that this is the reason why admission to membership of 3 categories of the members viz. patrons, life members, and ordinary members has been made subject to unanimous approval of the Governing Council specifically and this is not so in respect of admission to membership of the category of the founder members. He also submits that if the surviving founder members, who are presently only the objector Nos.1 & 2, are allowed to fill up the existing vacancies of the members in the category of the “founder members”, all problems choking the smooth administration of the affairs of the Mandal would get resolved and that there would be a Governing Council properly constituted in terms of the bye-laws of the Mandal. 8. The facts abstracted earlier would show that dispute between the petitioners and objector Nos.1 to 4 has by now turned itself into an internecine strife. They would also suggest that it has roots in the right of the Governing Council to induct any person as a founder member against the vacancies created on account of death or otherwise, which right, according to the objector Nos.1 to 4, is pristine and monopolistic and is, according to the petitioners, not so unconditional and absolute. Therefore, it would be appropriate to first understand the nature of the power of the founder members to fill up the vacancies of the members in the category of founder members so that some reasonable solution is found out to resolve the issues haunting the strife ridden Mandal. 9. Rule 2 of the bye-laws speaks of membership. It provides for 4 categories of members and also the procedure to be adopted for admitting to membership, a person desirous of becoming a member of any of the four kinds. It also provides for general power of the Governing Council to refuse to admit any kind of membership. This rule being relevant, is reproduced as under : 2. Membership - The members of the Mandal shall be of four kinds : 1. Founder Members – Founder members are all persons who have actually helped in the formation of the Mandal and have founded it by giving monetary as well as other sort of help and whose names appear in Schedule No.1 annexed herewith. The number of the founder members shall not exceed eleven at any time. Founder Members – Founder members are all persons who have actually helped in the formation of the Mandal and have founded it by giving monetary as well as other sort of help and whose names appear in Schedule No.1 annexed herewith. The number of the founder members shall not exceed eleven at any time. The group formed by the existing number of the founder members at any time shall be known as the body of the founder members. If a vacancy is caused by the death, resignation or removal of any of the founder member, the surviving founder members shall have a right to admit any person for becoming a founder member, provided, such a person is otherwise fit to be a member of the Mandal. 2. Patrons – Persons interested in education contributing Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) or more in lump sum shall be called patrons, subject to the said payment, unanimous approval of the Governing Council on the lines stated in Rule No.3. 3. Life Members – Persons interested in education contributing Rs.100/- (Rupee One Hundred) or more in lump sum shall be called life members subject to the said payment unanimous approval of the Governing Council on the lines stated in Rule No.3. 4. Ordinary Members – Persons, interested in education, contributing Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) or more in lump sum per year shall be called ordinary members subject to the said payment, unanimous approval of the Governing Council on the lines stated in Rule No.3 Membership of the Mandal shall be open to all the persons above 21 years of age and who agree to abide by rules of the said Mandal. Governing Council may refuse to admit any kind of membership stated above without assigning any reason therefor. 10. A good perusal of the above Rule would sufficiently enable us to know that the power of the surviving founding members to induct a new person as a member in the category of “founder members” is neither exclusive nor unconditional. While, the surviving founding members are conferred with a right to admit any person as a founder member subject to maximum of 11 founder members, the right is not absolute. The right is subject to general power of the Governing Council to refuse to admit any kind of membership delineated in Rule 2. While, the surviving founding members are conferred with a right to admit any person as a founder member subject to maximum of 11 founder members, the right is not absolute. The right is subject to general power of the Governing Council to refuse to admit any kind of membership delineated in Rule 2. This is clear from the use of the expression “Governing Council may refuse to admit any kind of membership stated above”, in the last paragraph of Rule 2. Although, the right of the surviving founding members to induct a new founder member is not qualified by a specific condition of unanimous approval of the Governing Council, as is the case for admitting the members as patrons or life members or ordinary members, the right has been diluted by what the Governing Council may choose to do in case of a person admitted as founder member by the surviving founder members subsequent to his admission as such. That is the reason why the expression just reproduced lays down that the Governing Council may refuse to admit any kind of membership stated above. If it was intended by the bye-laws that the Governing Council should restrict it's power of refusal to allow membership to only those persons falling in the categories of patrons, life members and ordinary members, there would not have been use of such specific words as “any kind of membership stated above”. 11. This expression “any kind of membership stated above” finds it's place in the last three concluding lines of last paragraph of Rule 2 and such placement, to my mind, would unequivocally suggest that the right so given to the Governing Council is exercisable in relation to not just three kinds of memberships, patrons, life and ordinary, but to all and any kind of memberships, that is of the four kinds, stated above and earlier than the expression. Reading the provisions of Rule 2 as one whole and in their entirety, the only impression that one gets unmistakably is that unlike the other categories of members, the surviving founding members can admit any fit person to membership in the category of “founder members” without seeking any prior approval of the Governing Council. Reading the provisions of Rule 2 as one whole and in their entirety, the only impression that one gets unmistakably is that unlike the other categories of members, the surviving founding members can admit any fit person to membership in the category of “founder members” without seeking any prior approval of the Governing Council. But, such admission to membership would always be dependent for its validity upon the express or tacit approval of the Governing Council, for, the final power to approve or refuse the admission to membership of “any kind of membership stated above” is vested in the Governing Council. If the Governing Council for a reasonable period of time, say, for about 90 days, maintains complete silence after the Governing Council acquires knowledge about induction of a new founder member by the surviving founder members, such silence could be taken as tacit approval of the Governing Council, but till there is a tacit or express approval by the Governing Council, as the case may be, the surviving founding members' act of inducting new founder member would breath no validity. 12. The conclusion drawn as above also receives support from the other provisions of bye-laws. Under Rule 6, the Governing Council has been made responsible for managing the whole affairs of the Mandal consistent with its aims and objects. Under this Rule itself, power has been conferred upon the Governing Council to consider admission to the membership, apart from other matters concerning the affairs of the Mandal. When Rule 6 invests the Governing Council with the overall responsibility to conduct the affairs of the Mandal and also with the general power to consider admission to membership, the argument that power of the surviving founding members to admit to membership of the group called “founder members” of the Mandal is exclusive, cannot be accepted and this is all the more so because in Rule 2 itself, general power has been conferred upon the Governing Council to refuse to admit to any kind of membership. The argument made in this behalf by Shri Naik, learned Counsel for objector Nos. 1 & 2 is, therefore, rejected. 13. The argument made in this behalf by Shri Naik, learned Counsel for objector Nos. 1 & 2 is, therefore, rejected. 13. The discussion made thus far leads me to find that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the learned District Judge, both, have rightly held that power of the surviving founding members to admit to membership of the category of the “founder members” is subject to the approval, tacit or express, of the Governing Council. I find no error apparent on the face of the record in the findings so concurrently recorded by both these authorities. 14. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the objectors, both have advanced argument and counter argument on merits of the change report vide Inquiry No.738/2013. However, I do not propose to go into the same for the reason that the tenure of the Governing Council that was elected for three years in the year 2013 has long expired and any discussion on the merits of the change report would only be of academic interest now. The law on this aspect of the matter is fairly well settled. Questions in the abstract or matters academic are normally not decided by the Courts [See Jagatnarayansingh Swarupsingh vs. Swarupsingh Education Society–1980 Mh.L.J. 372, Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd & anr. vs. Union of India & ors.– (1998) 8 SCC 208 and State of A.P. vs. I. Chandrasekhara Reddy & ors.– (1998) 7 SCC 141 ]. The need of the hour is to ensure that affairs of the Mandal are conducted and managed in the best of the interest of the Mandal and the beneficiaries. It would, therefore, make no sense to undertake an exercise involving some digging into the past and doing something unpleasant under the glare of the public, only to find at the end it's futility. Such an exercise would achieve nothing except for giving sadistic pleasure to those who relish watching dirty linen being washed in public. It would, therefore, make no sense to undertake an exercise involving some digging into the past and doing something unpleasant under the glare of the public, only to find at the end it's futility. Such an exercise would achieve nothing except for giving sadistic pleasure to those who relish watching dirty linen being washed in public. It is very unfortunate that a society or a Mandal, which has acquired reputation of being one of the finest educational institutions in Central India, has, due to constant squabbles and quibbles, strife and quarrels, and unsatiable desire of some of the trustees for acquiring monopolistic control over the Mandal is today standing on the brink of being torn asunder, which if not pulled back soon, may fall into an abyss, possibly having no chance to come back to life. 15. Essentially, this would impel me to only say, now, for the trustees and members, that let the bygones be bygones and be friends, if not to each other, but at least to the Mandal and make a new beginning for the good of one and all. With this aim in mind that one must examine the effect of the impugned orders passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge, Akola. 16. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has found that 8 persons, whose names appeared from Sr. No.28 to 35 on the list of the members vide Exh.56, were validly inducted as members by the Governing Council on 30/11/2005, as this Council, which got elected on 04/05/2003, validly held the office till 03/05/2006. This finding has been confirmed by the learned District Judge, Akola. I see no reason nor any has been put forward by any of the contesting parties to make any interference with such a concurrent finding of fact. 17. The learned District Judge, however, disagreed with another finding recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner to the effect that the Governing Council, which got elected on 04/05/2003, was not a properly elected committee as it's election was held by not following the unamended provision of the Constitution of the Mandal. According to the learned District Judge, Akola, this finding of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was contrary to his previous finding that the Executive Committee or the Governing Council elected on 04/05/2003 was validly in office till 03/05/2003. According to the learned District Judge, Akola, this finding of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was contrary to his previous finding that the Executive Committee or the Governing Council elected on 04/05/2003 was validly in office till 03/05/2003. I think, no fault could be found with the approach of the learned District Judge in upsetting this contradictory finding of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, as one cannot hold in the same breath two diametrically opposite views. Once the view is taken that 8 persons newly admitted to membership by the Governing Council elected on 04/05/2003 are the legal and proper members by virtue of their being admitted to membership by a valid Governing Council, no other view suggesting that election of such a Governing Council itself was contrary to the Constitution of the Mandal can be permitted to be taken. That apart, this Governing Council which was elected on 04/05/2003 remained in office without any protest or objection till the expiry of it's term on 03/05/2006 and that the change report submitted about it, was also accepted by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, which had attained the finality, as it was never challenged by any of the members of the Mandal or any interested persons therein. So, the change report in respect of Constitution of the Governing Council in the election held on 04/05/2003, which had attained finality cannot be permitted to be upset, without there being any specific challenge made to it, just by one stroke and that too through some observation made in the nature of a passing remark of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in his impugned order, dated 07/03/2017. This finding in the nature of a passing remark has, therefore, been rightly quashed and set aside by the learned District Judge, Akola. 18. This finding in the nature of a passing remark has, therefore, been rightly quashed and set aside by the learned District Judge, Akola. 18. It is further seen from the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner viewed the whole dispute through the prism of practicality and, therefore, in spite of dismissing the appeals filed under Section 70 of the MPT Act, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner gave a solution to the dispute, which to my mind, is most realistic and practicable in a situation of chaos and confusion the Mandal presently has landed in, mostly because of failure of surviving founder members to fill up the vacancies in time and also failure of other members to take remedial measures in time. As I have said, the purpose of inquiry in the dispute of the present nature should not be to initiate a blame game but should be to direct the stubbornly warring parties to a place where they can or would perforce bury the hatchet and make a new beginning in order to further and promote the aims and objects of the Mandal. On this backdrop, I find that the direction given by the Joint Charity Commissioner to call a General Body Meeting of all alive members, whose names appear from Sr. Nos.1 to 35 in the list of the members vide Exh.56 for electing a new Governing Council, while keeping remaining 9 posts of founder members vacant and for considering the matter of filling up the vacancies of the founder members or amending the Constitution after the new Governing Council gets elected, appears to be most reasonable as well as practicable. 19. Here is a situation, a grim one, if I may say, to which the founder members as well as other members of the Mandal themselves are responsible and this situation has assumed great complexity now. Initially, there were 11 founder members but, as stated earlier, there has been a gradual decline in the number of the founder members, so much so that the total number of the founder members dwindled to just 2 by the year 2013. Presently also, there are only 2 founder members and they are objector Nos.1 & 2. Initially, there were 11 founder members but, as stated earlier, there has been a gradual decline in the number of the founder members, so much so that the total number of the founder members dwindled to just 2 by the year 2013. Presently also, there are only 2 founder members and they are objector Nos.1 & 2. As per Rule 2, these two surviving founding members would have a right to induct new persons as founder members against 9 vacancies, but, as we have seen earlier, this right is neither absolute nor unconditional and is dependent for it's fruitful exercise upon the general power of approval of membership conferred upon the Governing Council. In other words, no new founder members could be validly inducted by the surviving founding members, unless there is general agreement amongst the surviving founding members and validly elected Governing Council. But, the matter does not stop here. The provisions in the bye-laws have added complexity to the issue. Rule 6 lays down that 4 members on the Governing Council shall be elected by the body of the founder members from amongst themselves while only 3 members shall be elected in the Special General Meeting of the Mandal held for the purpose. So, there is a sort of vicious circle which has formed here. There can be no validly inducted founder members without proper approval of the Governing Council and there can be no Governing Council newly elected without there being at least 4 founder members. But, here only 2 founder members are available. 20. So, there is a veritable impasse here. In order to get over it, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has suggested that while keeping remaining posts of the founder members vacant, the Governing Council can be elected by calling a Special General Body Meeting and thereafter further process of filling up the vacancies in the category of the founder members and even amending the Constitution, if desired, can be initiated by the Governing Council. This has been approved also by the learned District Judge, Akola. Considering the vicious circle that has been formed here, I am of the view that the only way to break the circle now is to go by the suggestions and directions given by the Joint Charity Commissioner. This has been approved also by the learned District Judge, Akola. Considering the vicious circle that has been formed here, I am of the view that the only way to break the circle now is to go by the suggestions and directions given by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Of course, some may say that the directions do not provide any workable solution and if implemented, may result in breach of the bye-laws themselves, leaving one wondering if the cure is worse than the ailment. The misgivings so expressed, I find, can and, I think, must be removed by making suitable modification as well as clarification to the order of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. The modification would be in the nature of holding the elections under the general supervision of the officer to be nominated for that purpose from amongst the responsible officers by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The reason for this modification is that after the aforestated direction was issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 07/03/2017 to the then Secretary, Shri Madhusudan Pasarkar, the surviving founding members did not abide by the direction and went on to fill up the remaining vacancies of 9 founder members by inducting new 9 persons as founder members and even holding the elections of the Governing Council, as stated on affidavit by the petitioners. That being so, the then Secretary, Shri Madhusudan Pasarkar, or for that matter even the reporting trustee, Shri Umakant Joshi (Petitioner No.1), cannot be entrusted with the job of convening the Special Meeting of the General Body for the purpose of electing new Governing Council. The clarification would be regarding the total number of members to be elected to the Governing Council. As there are only two founder members, both these founder members as per Rule 6 would have to be elected unopposed to the Governing Council. The General Body, as per Rule 6, shall have right to elect only 3 members from amongst all the members to the Governing Council. This would make the total number of elected members of the Governing Council to be 5 only, which is one member more than the quorum of 4 members requisite for a meeting of the Governing Council as per Rule 6. This would make the total number of elected members of the Governing Council to be 5 only, which is one member more than the quorum of 4 members requisite for a meeting of the Governing Council as per Rule 6. After the Governing Council is elected in this fashion, it would take appropriate decisions in consultation with the surviving founding members for filling up the remaining vacancies and/or amending the Constitution of the Mandal, as the case may be. The modification and clarification to the impugned order of learned Joint Charity Commissioner are accordingly made, and with this, I find it right to conclude the issue by declaring that the solution given by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to resolve the dispute is reasonable, subject to the modification and clarification just made. 21. In the result, I find that Writ Petition No.1111/2018 deserves to be dismissed and that Writ Petition No.1110/2018 also deserves to be dismissed insofar as it seeks a direction for acceptance of the change report vide Inquiry No.738/2013 by the authorities below. But, it deserves to be allowed in terms of it's alternate prayer for calling the Special Meeting of the General Body for electing new Governing Council under the supervision of an independent authority. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.1111/2018 is dismissed and Writ Petition No.1110/2018 is partly allowed. 22. It is directed that Special Meeting of the General Body of all those alive members, whose names appear from Sr. No.1 to 35 in the list of members vide Exh.56 be called by the competent Officer to be nominated from amongst the officers working on the establishment of the Assistant Charity Commissioner by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola Region, Akola and the elections to the new Governing Council shall be held under the supervision of such nominee of the Assistant Charity Commissioner within one month from the date of the order and till that time, the interim arrangement made by the learned District Judge, Akola, in terms of order dated 11/01/2018 shall be continued. 23. It is further directed that, as per Rule 6, 2 surviving founding members being entitled to elect themselves as members of the Governing Council be allowed to exercise their such right. It is further directed that 3 more members, as per Rules, shall be elected to the new Governing Council from amongst the alive members, whose names appear from Sr. It is further directed that, as per Rule 6, 2 surviving founding members being entitled to elect themselves as members of the Governing Council be allowed to exercise their such right. It is further directed that 3 more members, as per Rules, shall be elected to the new Governing Council from amongst the alive members, whose names appear from Sr. No.1 to 35 in the list of members at Exh.56. 24. It is further directed that the Governing Council so elected shall thereafter consider, in consultation with the surviving founding members, the matter of filling up the remaining vacancies of the founder members and/or amendment of the Constitution of the Mandal, in accordance with law. 25. Rule is thus discharged in Writ Petition No.1111/2018 and it is made absolute in Writ Petition No.1110/2018 in above terms. Parties to bear their own costs. All the civil applications are disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions.