JUDGMENT : N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Shri Shankar Deosthan, Wakodi, Taluka Saoner, Distt. Nagpur bearing registration No. A-37(Nagpur) is public trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (for short "the Act"). 4. All 6 trustees in Schedule I of the trust since expired, the respondents moved an application under section 47 of the Act for appointment of trustees and the framing of the scheme. The said application came to be allowed on December 15, 2017. As such this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants Shri Thakre would urge that the trust document initially provided for election of the trustees to the trust after the expiry of the period of 2 years which is a tenure provided. According to him, after the Schedule I trustees were expired, it is appellants who were managing the affairs of the trust. According to him, the aforesaid fact was well within the knowledge of the respondents who are applicants in an application preferred under section 47 of the Act. Without impleading the applicants/appellants as party to the said application, according to him, the Authority has proceeded to appoint the respondents as trustees in exercise of powers under section 47 of the Act with further directions to frame a scheme. Learned Counsel then would urge that the order impugned dated December 15, 2017 is not sustainable as the procedure as contemplated under section 47 of the Act is not followed. Drawing support from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar and others vs. Jaiwant @ Babasaheb S/o. Vishwanth Uttarwar and others, reported in 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 253 the learned Counsel submits that the order impugned is not sustainable. According to him, the trustees appointed under section 47 of the Act viz. Shri Devidas Chintamanirao Madankar and Rupesh Devidas Madankar are father and son duo out of one family. He would as such urge that the order impugned is passed without application of mind. 6. While countering the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent Shri Johrapurkar would urge that it is a case of acquiescence on the part of the appellants. He would submit that once the scheme for approval is already submitted, this Court should be slow at such a delayed stage in interfering in the appellate jurisdiction. 6. While countering the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent Shri Johrapurkar would urge that it is a case of acquiescence on the part of the appellants. He would submit that once the scheme for approval is already submitted, this Court should be slow at such a delayed stage in interfering in the appellate jurisdiction. The learned Counsel then would invite attention of this Court to the fact that the appellants were managing affairs of some different trust than the trust in question and have tried to take disadvantage of only synonymity in the name. The learned Counsel then would urge that it is not the case pleaded by the appellants that the trustees were appointed under section 47 of the Act are disqualified under any of the provisions of the Act. As such, according to him, the order impugned is sustainable and it does not warrant any interference. A dismissal of appeal is sought. 7. Considered the rival submissions. 8. This Court had an occasion to deal with the scheme to be taken recourse to while exercising powers under section 47 of the Act. In the matter of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar and others vs. Jaiwant @ Babasaheb S/o. Vishwanth Uttarwar and others (supra) this Court while considering the provisions of section 47 has observed that the Charity Commissioner while exercising powers thereunder must conduct an enquiry and upon application of mind to the such enquiry report and the proposal shall pass an appropriate order of appointment of the trustees. An appropriate support to this can be drawn from the observations made in paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 12 which read as follows: "9. Shri Gordey and Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the Charity Commissioner was satisfied about the fitness of respondents and there is nothing adverse against them. They submitted that an enquiry was made by the Charity Commissioner and then the order is passed. It is clear from the section itself that before appointment is made an enquiry is required to be made. The word enquiry is not defined in the Act. However, word enquiry has been defined best in Ramnath Ayer's Law Lexicon as 'search for knowledge, investigating a question.' To me, the enquiry is something short of trial. It is clear from the section itself that before appointment is made an enquiry is required to be made. The word enquiry is not defined in the Act. However, word enquiry has been defined best in Ramnath Ayer's Law Lexicon as 'search for knowledge, investigating a question.' To me, the enquiry is something short of trial. Therefore, wherever an enquiry as required by law is to be held, the law expects the authority to do some kind of investigation and the consideration of material before it. Shri Mishra contended that the Charity Commissioner had considered the application and biodata before him and he was not required to consider more than that. The submission cannot be accepted. The enquiry can never be so informal and it has, in fact, to be formal. The question is whether the Charity Commissioner was bound to consider the contents of the application and bio data alone or something more was expected of him while taking the decision. I find that the Charity Commissioner is expected to do something more than that. He is not supposed to accept as gospel truth what is stated in the application. It would also be necessary of him to enquire with few persons interested in Trust or even devotees. Ultimately, the Trust is to be run for benefit of the public. Therefore, consultation with a few would be mandatory. In the instant case, what has happened is that; one person filed an application. He suggested certain names and the Charity Commissioner accepted the suggestion and made an appointment within a week's time. Shri Gordey had submitted that there is no provision to give any public notice or notices to anybody in section 47. There is no specific provision in the said section but then section certainly contemplates an enquiry and enquiry, as stated earlier, is nothing but an investigation and may be short of a trial. Such enquiry is with a view that the Charity Commissioner takes a decision after verifying the correctness of the allegations made in the application, suitability of persons and if any other suitable persons are available. The Charity Commissioner has to bear in mind the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 47 also while holding an enquiry. Sub-section (3) speaks of things which the Charity Commissioner is supposed to take into account while making an enquiry. The Charity Commissioner has to bear in mind the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 47 also while holding an enquiry. Sub-section (3) speaks of things which the Charity Commissioner is supposed to take into account while making an enquiry. Clause (d) of sub-section (3) would make it clear that the Charity Commissioner is supposed to consult the persons interested and also the public interested. The fact that the Charity Commissioner is to consider the interest of the public, who have interest in the Trust, shows that the consultation with such persons is absolutely necessary and this provision, to my mind, suggests that a public notice must be issued. The interest of the public can be protected only if a notice is issued and public is informed of such application having been made and such vacancies having arisen. The submission of Shri Mishra that the appellants should have come forward voluntarily before the Charity Commissioner and should have contested the application cannot be accepted. In fact, the expectation of Shri Mishra that the appellants should have voluntarily come forward cannot be accepted also, because the appellants were not in the knowledge of such application having been filed before the Charity Commissioner. How does he then expect the appellants to appear before the Charity Commissioner and contest the application? In fact, as pointed, the application was decided within a week's time and with great haste, leaving no scope for the appellants to participate. In fact, the respondent-Uttarwar should have fairly asked the Charity Commissioner, to issue notice to the present appellants and the public since the present appellants also have been fighting with him in the Court of law since 1998. Even the Charity Commissioner knows that there are two factions. In spite of this he chooses not to issue notice to any other party. If any enquiry has to be held, it would be incumbent to hear both the factions. In spite of the knowledge, as stated earlier, the Charity Commissioner failed to issue any notice to the appellants or to the public in general. Such a notice could have been displayed in the temple itself. Had the Charity Commissioner given a notice or displayed it in the temple, a wider choice would have been available to him for selection of trustees and the information about all others which may have and could have been suppressed. Such a notice could have been displayed in the temple itself. Had the Charity Commissioner given a notice or displayed it in the temple, a wider choice would have been available to him for selection of trustees and the information about all others which may have and could have been suppressed. The result of not issuing notice is that all others are deprived of being considered for the appointment as trustees. The Charity Commissioner was not bound to consider the names as mentioned in the application alone. If this kind of procedure is followed, then perhaps the Charity Commissioner will be left with no choice but to appoint only those whose names are to be found in the application. This certainly is not contemplated. 10. There is yet another reason why proper enquiry and investigation is necessary in the matter under this section. This, to my mind, is clear from the provisions of sub-section 5 of section 47. Sub-section 5 says that an order passed on the enquiry shall be deemed to be a decree and an appeal shall lie against such an order. Use of word decree is very significant. Decree is defined in Civil Procedure Code as follows- "Decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation - A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. 12. The question as to whether present respondents were fit to be appointed nor not need not be gone into and I do not express any opinion over that. I find that the order of the Charity Commissioner suffers from illegality since he did not conduct any enquiry as such and passed the impugned order. 12. The question as to whether present respondents were fit to be appointed nor not need not be gone into and I do not express any opinion over that. I find that the order of the Charity Commissioner suffers from illegality since he did not conduct any enquiry as such and passed the impugned order. I would, therefore, set aside the order and remit the enquiry under section 47 back to the Charity Commissioner and direct the Charity Commissioner to issue notices to the appellants and to display the notice in the temple itself inviting any objections to the application and even permitting others to apply for being appointed as trustees, if they so choose. He shall then hold a fresh enquiry and decide the application afresh. In the meantime, the Charity Commissioner may consider appointing fit persons to administer the Trust. The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Charity Commissioner is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Shri Mishra appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the present body is continued by order dated 1-4-2009. He submits that the respondent wants to challenge the order before the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, he makes a request that the present body may be allowed to continue for a period of six weeks. The prayer is granted. The order directing the appointment of fit person shall come into effect after expiry of six weeks." 9. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the fact remains that to the application the non-applicant impleaded all the deceased trustees rightly so i.e. formed to be basis for invoking the powers under section 47 of the Act, however, that by itself will not render the proceedings on the part of the respondents illegal. 10. However, appellants herein are claiming that in the proceedings in question, may be at the fag end, they have raised an objection. Apart from above, even if an application was moved by the respondents in exercise of powers under section 47 of the Act, the Authority i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner was duty-bound to conduct an enquiry as regards the entitlement of the respondents to be appointed as trustees under section 47 of the Act. Apart from above, even if an application was moved by the respondents in exercise of powers under section 47 of the Act, the Authority i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner was duty-bound to conduct an enquiry as regards the entitlement of the respondents to be appointed as trustees under section 47 of the Act. Admittedly, no such enquiry is caused and the submissions and the affidavit given by the respondents are accepted as gospel truth so as to form to be basis for the appointment of the trustees under section 47 of the Act. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondents Shri Johrapurkar though have relied on the public notice published in the newspaper and also a notice displayed in the Grampanchayat about the process of appointment of trustees, that by itself will not result into discharging statutory obligation on the part of the Joint Charity Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in the matter of appointment of trustees. Once the statutory Authority under section 47 of the Act is duty-bound to conduct an enquiry and such enquiry has to be considered and relied upon while passing an order under section 47 of the Act, the said enquiry cannot be given a go-bye. The order impugned which is without such enquiry can be inferred to be based on the only material which is made available by the respondents before the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner prima facie appears to have not applied its mind while exercising powers under section 47 of the Act as is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants particularly when the father and son duo were appointed as the trustees under section 47 of the Act. Though Shri Johrapurkar, has pointed out that there are other trustees who are not related to these 2 trustees and there is no statutory embargo on the right of aforesaid 2 trustees i.e. father and son being qualified to be appointed under the provision of the Act, however, this Court cannot be insensitive to the aforesaid fact that the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner impugned in appeal is without application of mind and without any enquiry in the matter. All the trustees named by the respondents are appointed by the Authority by the impugned order. 12. As such the order impugned dated December 15, 2017 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. All the trustees named by the respondents are appointed by the Authority by the impugned order. 12. As such the order impugned dated December 15, 2017 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. The application (Exh. 47), in my opinion, needs to be decided afresh. The appellants and the respondents agree that they shall appear before the Joint Charity Commissioner in the matter in question on 9th October, 2019 with their respective claims. 14. The respective parties also agree that they shall not seek any adjournment before the Joint Charity Commissioner and shall co-operate with said Authority in the expeditious disposal of section 47 application of the Act. 15. The application preferred by the respondents under section 47 of the Act be decided after taking into account the aforesaid observations. As such the appeal stands partly allowed. No costs. 16. The existing arrangement shall continue to operate till October 21, 2019 and the parties are at liberty to take steps for managing the trust in accordance with law.