JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. These four petitions can be disposed by common judgment as the parties are same and the subject matter is also same. 2. Heard. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. Change Report No.1581 of 2013 under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950 was filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1121 of 2019. This change report was filed before Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur on 14th July 2013. Change Report No. 1440 of 2013 was filed by the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 1121 of 2019. This Change Report was filed on 28th July 2013. In Change Report No. 1440 of 2013, the reporting trustee i.e. respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 1122 of 2019 claimed that the persons whose names were shown in the change reports were elected as trustees in the elections alleged to have been held on 14th July 2013. In Change Report No.1581 of 2013, the reporting trustee Rajendra Zade, i.e. petitioner No.4 in Writ Petition No. 1121 of 2019 claimed that the persons whose names were shown in that change report were elected as trustees in the elections alleged to have been held on 28th July 2013. By order dated 23rd March 2016, the Change Report No. 1440 of 2013 was rejected. By order passed on the same day i.e. on 23rd March 2016, Change Report No. 1581 of 2013 was accepted. These two orders were challenged by the aggrieved parties before Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal No. 94 of 2016 and Appeal No. 91 of 2016. By judgment dated 3rd August 2017 Appeal No. 91 of 2016 was allowed. By separate order passed on the same day i.e. 3rd August 2017, Appeal No. 94 of 2016 was also allowed. The effect of these orders was that the Change Report No. 1440 of 2013, was accepted and it was directed that the names of the persons about whose election that change report was filed should be entered in Schedule-I of the Public Trust Register, and the Change Report No. 5181 of 2013 was dismissed. The effect of these orders was that the Change Report No. 1440 of 2013, was accepted and it was directed that the names of the persons about whose election that change report was filed should be entered in Schedule-I of the Public Trust Register, and the Change Report No. 5181 of 2013 was dismissed. The orders passed in Appeal No. 91 of 2016 and Appeal No. 94 of 2016 were challenged before the District Court in Application No. 72 of 2001 of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950"), in Regular Civil Application No. 12 of 2017 and Regular Civil Application No. 13 of 2017. These two applications are decided by the learned District Judge by separate orders, which are challenged in these petitions. The learned District Judge has set aside the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, as also the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and has remitted the matter to the Deputy Charity Commissioner for fresh decision on both the change reports. Both the groups/ parties have filed these petitions to challenge the order passed by the learned District Judge. 5. Shri S.D.Abhyankar, Advocate appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.808 of 2019, i.e. the trustees who claim to have been elected in the election held on 14th July 2013 and report about whose election was submitted vide Change Report No.1440 of 2013 contends that the order passed by the learned District Judge remanding the matter is illegal and unsustainable in law as the District Court is not conferred with the powers to remand the matter. It is submitted that as per Section 72(2) of the Act of 1950, the Court may take additional evidence if it feels so and confirm, revoke or modify the decision or remit the amount of surcharge and make such orders as to costs as it thinks proper in the circumstances. Relying on the phraseology used in Section 72(2) of the Act of 1950, it is argued that power to remand the matter is not conferred on the District Court. To support the submission, reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i) Judgment given by Single Judge of this Court at Aurangabad in the case of Vasantrao S/o. Vishwanathrao Mane and ors. Vs. To support the submission, reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i) Judgment given by Single Judge of this Court at Aurangabad in the case of Vasantrao S/o. Vishwanathrao Mane and ors. Vs. Apparao S/o. Baibanna Sidore and ors., (2008) 3 MhLJ 242 , (ii) Judgment given by Single Judge of this Court at Aurangabad in the case of Gaffar S/o. Sattarkhan Pathan and others vs. Marutrao S/o. Tatyaba Sarpate and another, (2012) 3 MhLJ 211 , (iii) Judgment given by Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3625 of 2018 (Rambhau Keshavrao Magar & anr. Vs. Vinayak @ Shamrao Moreshwar Deshpande & oth.) on 3rd September 2018. It is further submitted by Shri S.D.Abhyankar, Advocate that on merits also, the conclusions of the learned District Judge are in consonance with the documents and evidence on record and the matter is remitted only to enable the other party i.e. the persons about whose election Change Report No.1581 of 2013 came to be filed (i.e. petitioners in W.P. No. 1121/2019), to adduce evidence to prove its case. 6. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1121 of 2019 argued that the contention of Shri S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate that the District Judge has no power to remand the matter is not correct. Para No.31 of the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary vs. Laxman Baban Mali and others, (2016) 3 MhLJ 202 is referred to urge that the District Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72(1) and 72(2) of the Act of 1950 has power to remand the matter. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case of Hiragar Dayagar and another vs. Ratanlal Chunilal and others, (1973) AIR Gujarat 15 is also relied upon to support the contention that the District Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72(1) and 72(2) of the Act of 1950 has power to remand the matter. It is relevant to state that the judgment given by the High Court of Gujrat is on the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950) which applied in the State of Gujrat also. It is relevant to state that the judgment given by the High Court of Gujrat is on the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950) which applied in the State of Gujrat also. It is pointed out that the judgments relied upon by Shri S.D.Abhyankar, Advocate do not refer to the provisions of Section 76 of the Act of 1950 and non-consideration of this provision has resulted in the erroneous conclusions that District Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72(1) and Section 72(2) of the Act of 1950 is not conferred with powers to remand the matter. 7. On merits, it is submitted that other party i.e. persons who claim to have been elected in the election held on 14th July 2013 obtained the order dated 23rd March 2016 from Deputy Charity Commissioner by playing fraud, and misrepresenting the facts. It is submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Deputy Charity Commissioner for fresh decision and opportunity is granted to both the parties to put-forth their case. 8. In the judgments given by this Court in the cases of Vasantrao Mane and Gaffar Pathan (supra) and Rambhau Magar (supra), it is held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72(1) and Section 72(2) of the Act of 1950, District Court is not conferred with power to remand the proceedings to the subordinate authority. But as argued by Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate, the provisions of Section 76 of the Act of 1950 were not pointed out to the Court in all the three matters. Section 76 of the Act of 1950 reads as under: "76. Civil Procedure Code to apply to proceedings (before Court) under this Act Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings before the court under this Act." Before the Act of 1950 came to be amended by the Maharashtra Act No.55 of 2017 w.e.f. 10th October 2017, application under Section 72(1) of the Act of 1950 would lie before the District Court from decision of Charity Commissioner under Section 70 of the Act of 1950. As per Section 76 of the Act of 1950, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to all the proceedings before the Court. As per Section 76 of the Act of 1950, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to all the proceedings before the Court. Section 2 (4) of the Act of 1950, (before its amendment by Maharashtra Act No.55 of 2017, dated 01/09/2017) defined "Court" to mean, in the Greater Bombay, the City Civil Court and elsewhere, the District Court. Thus, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to the proceedings under the Act of 1950 before the District Court. Hence, the powers conferred by Order 41 Rule 23 and Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure were available to the District Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72(1) and Section 72(2) of the Act of 1950. In the judgment given by the Full Bench in the case of Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary (Supra), Section 76 of the Act of 1950 is referred and it is noted that because of Section 76 of the Act of 1950, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply to the proceedings before the Court i.e. the District Court. However, as far as the proceedings before the Authorities under the Act of 1950 are concerned, as per Section 73 of the Act of 1950, they are given certain powers under the Code of Civil Procedure as mentioned in Section 73 of the Act of 1950. Section 73 of the Act of 1950, reads as follows : "73. Officers holding inquiries to have powers of civil court. In holding inquiries under this Act, the officer holding the same shall have the same powers as are vested in courts in respect of the following matters under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in trying a suit- (a) proof of facts by affidavits, (b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, (c) ordering discovery and inspection, and compelling the production of documents, (d) issuing of commissions. Provided that, while holding enquiry under section 22 of the Act, the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner shall record the evidence in the form of affidavits only subject to the cross-examinations of the deponent, if permitted by him in appropriate case." The legislature has provided separate provisions conferring distinct powers on the Authorities under the Act, and on the District Court while dealing with the proceedings under the Act of 1950. Of course, whatever is recorded by the Full Bench in paragraph No.31 of the judgment delivered in the case of Prabhakar Sambhu Choudhary (supra) on the point of power of the District Court to remand the matter, is not in relation to the point of reference which the Full Bench considered. However, as the Full Bench has recorded its conclusions on the point after examining the relevant provisions, in my view, it would be binding on this Court. 9. Shri S.D. Abhyankar, learned Advocate submitted that if at all the proposition laid down in the three judgments referred by him is not being accepted, then the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. I am conscious that the judgment given by the co-ordinate Bench is binding and if at all it is felt that the view expressed in the judgment requires reconsideration, then request to that effect should be made and papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for considering the constitution of larger Bench. But in the present case, I find that the relevant provisions of Section 76 of the Act of 1950 which have a direct bearing on the issue were not pointed out while judgments relied upon by Shri S.D. Abhyankar were delivered, and in view of the conclusions recorded by the Full Bench of this Court in paragraph No.31 of the judgment given in the case of Prabhakar Sambhu Choudhary, in my view request for constitution of larger Bench is not necessary. 10. Adopting the view expressed by the Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case of Hiragar Dayagar (supra) and following the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Sambhu Choudhary, (supra), I hold that the District Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72(1) and Section 72(2) of the Act of 1950 (before its amendment by the Maharashtra Act No.55 of 2017) had the powers to remand the matter. 11. 11. On merits, I find that the learned District Judge has found that the material/evidence on record is not sufficient for recording the definite finding about the service of notice (Exh.26) which was alleged to have been issued to the trustees, inviting them for the meeting scheduled on 14th May 2013 in which 18 new members came to be enrolled as claimed by the trustees, in respect of whose election Change Report No. 1440 of 2013 is filed. According to the trustees, in respect of whose election Change Report No.1581 of 2013 is filed, there are only 20 members of the public trust out of whom three members died and only 17 members were alive in May 2013. In these facts, legality of induction of 18 new members is required to be adjudicated and the learned District Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Deputy Charity Commissioner for fresh decision. 12. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. 13. Another relevant issue which arise for consideration at this stage is, who will be administering the trust and the institution? Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, learned Advocate for the trustees, in whose respect Change Report No. 1581 of 2013 is filed, has pointed out the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7399 of 2018 and other connected matters on 2nd May 2018. This Court permitted the trustees who claim to have been elected in the elections held on 28th July 2013 to administer the trust however, with a rider that they will not take any major policy decision without obtaining prior permission of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. To clarify, it is directed that till decision on Change Report No. 1440 of 2013 and Change Report No. 1581 of 2013, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1121 of 2019 viz. (1) Smt.Kusumtai Baburao Zade, (2) Shri Baburao Lahanuji Zade, (3) Shri Bhagwan Damaji Radake, (4) Shri Rajendra Baburao Zade and (5) Shri Haribhau Fakira Zade will administer the public trust and institution, however, they will not take decision regarding any expenses more than Rs.10,000/- and in the matter of appointment, removal and transfer of the employees. In case of any exigency, the concerned trustees shall move Joint Charity Commissioner and seek permission before taking any such action. In case of any exigency, the concerned trustees shall move Joint Charity Commissioner and seek permission before taking any such action. The parties undertake to appear before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur on 8th November 2019 at 11: 00 a.m. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur is directed to decide both the Change Reports till 15th January 2020.