JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned AGP Ms. Nidhi Vyas waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for setting aside judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Charity Commissioner. It is also prayed to stay election process to the Board, which is scheduled on 08.04.2020, as a consequences of setting aside of the impugned judgment and order of the Charity Commissioner. 4. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case are that Scheme Amendment Application No.5 of 2011 is moved by respondent No.2 before the Charity Commissioner. The said application was filed as, as per the Rules, sanction of the Charity Commissioner is necessary. The periodical amendments to the Election Rules are required to be sanctioned by the Charity Commissioner and accordingly, resolution No.9 dated 22.09.2019, which amended Rules for election, the same was to be implemented. By the impugned order, Charity Commissioner approved Rules as amended under resolution Nos.6 and 9 and at the same time, had also suggested certain amendments in the procedure. It is this order which is subject matter of challenged by the petitioners in their capacity as beneficiaries of the respondent-Trust. 5. The challenge to the impugned order is mainly on the ground that the Charity Commissioner has acted beyond his jurisdiction as he had no authority to deal with any amendment as the same would amount to amending scheme which is only the prerogative of the High Court. 5.1 It is also challenged on the ground that to bypass prevailing Rules for election and that too after such Rules have been examined by this Court in its decision in the year 2015, the respondent has persuaded the Charity Commissioner to take up an application for amendment of the Election Rules filed in the year 2011 and that application was decided in the year 2019. Therefore, when such Rules were expressly before the High Court when it passed order in MCA No.3154 of 2009, proposed Rules were already considered and thereafter, directions were given. The order, therefore, passed in 2011 application is overreaching the directions of the High Court. Therefore, when such Rules were expressly before the High Court when it passed order in MCA No.3154 of 2009, proposed Rules were already considered and thereafter, directions were given. The order, therefore, passed in 2011 application is overreaching the directions of the High Court. 5.2 It is also challenged on the ground that by the amendment approved by the Charity Commissioner, design of the respondent-Trust is to exclude more than 10,000/- eligible voters from participating in the election and therefore, by such interpretation, suitable to the present dispensation, the respondent, who belong to one particular section of the Trust, only wants to continuously be in power. 5.3 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the resolution is of 22.09.2010, for which application for approval of such resolution was given in the year 2011 and when this Court was considering MCA No.3154 of 2009, the said amendment and the application for approval was very much pending. In fact, such resolution was very much considered by this Court and this Court has clearly opined on the resolution and had also prescribed modalities. He drew attention specifically to para-48 of CAV judgment dated 09.01.2015 in MCA No.3154 of 2009. Relying on such observations, it is submitted that once the High Court has opined, the matter should have ended there and then. There as no cause of action for once again taking into consideration application dated 02.06.2011 being Scheme Modification Application No.5 of 2011. 5.4 It is submitted that even if the impugned order is considered independently, still, timing of taking up application dated 02.06.2011 for hearing and disposal after a long period suggests malafide intention to overrule the observations of this Court. 5.5 It is vehemently submitted that respondent No.2 and Charity Commissioner have acted hand-in-glove, which is very evident from the date on which the order is passed and the date on which public notice was issued with regard to election. It is submitted that the impugned order is dated 11.12.2019 and at the best, copy of the order would be made available only on the date or after it is pronounced, i.e. after 11.12.2019 and therefore, publication of public notice in newspaper on that very day would indicate that the respondent had preempted the order in his favour and therefore, proceeded to issue public notice for election. 5.6 Learned Advocate for the petitioners thereafter submitted on the issue of Rule 3, referring to application Exh.66 in Scheme Modification Application and submitted that considering application Exh.66 for amending Rule 3, the same is also against decision of this Court and waiting for adjudication before the Apex Court. In doing so, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that by Rule 3, an attempt is made to change entire nature of eligibility of voters. It is submitted that Rule 3 of elections rules was framed under the scheme sanctioned by the High Court and therefore, by changing definition of voters, scheme sanctioned by the High Court is sought to be tampered with. He drew attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in LPA No.1373 of 2015, where this Court has decided the issue as to whether practice followed by the temple trust shall prevail over the election rules framed under the scheme by this Curt and which shall have statutory force. While answering such question, this Court has decided that the election rules shall prevail. The issue was thereafter carried to the Apex Court where order of status quo is passed as on day. The said SLP is still pending before the Apex Court and therefore, no decision should have been taken below application Exh.66. 5.7 It is submitted that the petitioners had filed application Exh.690 questioning very maintainability of the application for modification on the ground of jurisdiction and for all purpose, had also drawn attention of the Charity Commissioner to earlier application Exh.651 and subsequent decision on the issue by this Court in SCA No.16894 of 2015, confirmed in LPA No.1738 of 2019. Despite this, the Charity Commissioner has not considered the objection of jurisdiction and proceeded to decide the application. 6. As against this, learned Senior Advocates for respondent No.2 submitted that though elaborate submissions are made on malafide exercise of power and perversity of the order, however, there are no pleadings to this effect. Learned Senior Advocates for the respondent drew attention of this Court to the original scheme at Annexure-B and the original rules. It is submitted that application of 2011 is in consonance with the original scheme as well as rules. Learned Senior Advocates for the respondent drew attention of this Court to the original scheme at Annexure-B and the original rules. It is submitted that application of 2011 is in consonance with the original scheme as well as rules. 6.1 It is submitted that though much arguments have been made on the basis of CAV judgment in MCA No.3154 of 2009, the purpose of the application before the High Court was to bring in transparency in the election and it is in that direction only that the rules were framed for bringing in the transparency. It is submitted that therefore, amendment in the rules and the impugned order is very much in consonance with the directions contained in the CAV judgment and is furthering the purpose of transparency as set out in the judgment of this Court. The rules of 2011 are as per clause-45 of the scheme and filing of application in the year 2011 is as per such provision. Therefore, filing of application in the year 2011 cannot be said to be in any manner against the directions contained in CAV judgment in MCA No.3154 of 2009. It is further submitted that the application of 2011 could not be proceeded with only on account of pending litigation at one stage or the other between the parties. It is submitted that since the application was pending since 2011 and there was no decision, it was incumbent upon the Charity Commissioner to take up such application and bring it to logical conclusion. Such an act cannot be considered to be in any manner against the directions of the High Court. 6.2 Learned Senior Advocates for the respondent thereafter drew attention of this Court to order dated 07.04.2014 in MCA No.3154 of 2009, which directs the Charity Commissioner to examine the rules, suggestions and objections by giving opportunity of hearing to both sides and to furnish report. Therefore, this Court was already having benefit of not only the report but also amendment application of 2011 which was pending and the nature of amendment. Still, while deciding MCA No.3154 of 2009, this Court has not specifically barred decision on application of 2011. Therefore, this Court was already having benefit of not only the report but also amendment application of 2011 which was pending and the nature of amendment. Still, while deciding MCA No.3154 of 2009, this Court has not specifically barred decision on application of 2011. 6.3 It is submitted that the Charity Commissioner while passing the order was conscious of the directions of the High Court in MCA No.3154 of 2009 and has in fact, made observations in the impugned order so as to incorporate the observations in spirit of the judgment of the High Court. 6.4 In connection with the submission made regarding Rule 3, it is submitted that the submission is unfounded as even in the judgment of this Court, the interpretation given has not been touched by the Charity Commissioner. The petitioners have failed to point out how filling up the form to decide voters is in any manner prejudicial and how such exercise will oust 10,000/0 electorates. There is nothing objectionable in giving such performa. It is submitted that like in all previous rounds of litigations, the petitioners have created a ghost only with a purpose to delay the election. It is submitted that the petitioners are disgruntled group of people who are supporters of deposed 'Acharya' and are therefore making attempt to tarnish image of the trust and resorting to litigations every now and then. It is submitted that as the petitioners are conscious that the petitioners will not be able to win in election, these types of impediments are caused. It is submitted that the decision of the Charity Commissioner and the commitment of the Trust is to strictly comply with the directions of this Court and all the modalities adopted are in consonance with such directions. It is submitted that the election is to be conducted under the direct supervision of retired Judge of this Court as well as retired District Judge and therefore, entire election proceedings are subject to supervision of retired Judges and therefore, if any discrepancy or doubt is there in the minds of the petitioners, the same should be removed as the entire election will be supervised by retired Judges. It is submitted that the application for amendment of rules were filed by the temple board through its Chief Kothari and by the Chairman of the temple board. It is submitted that the application for amendment of rules were filed by the temple board through its Chief Kothari and by the Chairman of the temple board. The temple board and its office bearers were duly authorized to file the application for amendment for election rules pursuant to the resolution passed by the managing committee of the temple board. It is submitted that in the year 2011 Swami Nilkanth Charandasji was the Chief executive Kothari and thereafter in the year 2015, after election, new body of management was constituted and Swami Ghanshyam Prakashdasji was appointed as the Chief Executive Kothari and Swami Dev Prakashdasji was appointed as Chairman of the Temple Board. The change report in respect of the managing committee of the Temple Board which was elected and selected in the year of 2010 election was already accepted by the office of the Charity Commissioner in the change report proceedings and their names have been also entered in the PTR. In respect of officer bearers who have been elected after 2015 election, their change report is also accepted by the office of the Charity Commissioner. The “tyagis” who have been elected and selected as the Chief Executive Kothari and the Chairman are registered “tyagis” of the Laxminarayandeve Temple Trust Vadtal and they are the followers of VadtalGaadi. They strictly follow the school of thought of Swaminarayan Sampradaay. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, from the documents, it appears that this Court has framed final scheme for the Trust of Shree Laxminarayan Dev Temple Board Trust at Valtad and temples subordinate to it for administration. The said scheme was framed by this Court in First Appeal No.543 of 1970 and which has been confirmed in LPA No.183 of 1973 on 04.12.1976. Clauses 18(e) and 18(g) provide that the temple board to frame rules which may be sanctioned by the Charity Commissioner with or without modifications. The said clauses read as under:- “18(e) Subject to the rules that may be framed in behalf of the elections, every adult male Grahast, Brahmchari, Sadhu and Pala whose names may be included in the voters list to be prepared by the Board shall respectively elect their representative on the Board. The said clauses read as under:- “18(e) Subject to the rules that may be framed in behalf of the elections, every adult male Grahast, Brahmchari, Sadhu and Pala whose names may be included in the voters list to be prepared by the Board shall respectively elect their representative on the Board. “18(g) Such rules framed by the Board as may be sanctioned by the Charity Commissioner with or without modifications may provide that no Grahasti may vote unless he has subscribed a prescribed sum to the fund of the trust in specified preceding years.” 7.1 Clause-33 provides that the Board to manage the temporal affairs of the trust and also further empowers the trust in framing of the rules in respect of the rules of the managing trustee and prepare voters list accordingly. Clause 33(c) reads as under:- “Framing of Rules in respect of election of the Board of Managing trustees and preparing Voters' list accordingly.” 7.2 Clause-45 provides that the Board from time to time to make rules and regulations as it may thing fit and also further provides that election rules shall not be effected without the sanction of the Charity Commissioner. The relevant portion of Clause-45 of the scheme provides as under:- “The Board shall have power from time to time to 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 repeat any of them and substitute 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 or the rules thereunder; Provided further that the Rules in respect of the election of the Board shall not be effected without the sanction of Charity Commissioner.” 7.3 Under clause-18(c) of the scheme, election of the trust shall take place on 'Samaiya' day of the month of 'Chaitra' every five years after the last election and every election shall be held at Vadtal and such other centers as may be fixed from time to time under the rules pertaining to the election rules. Therefore, under the scheme, it is the duty of the temple board to declare and conduct election as provided under the scheme and accordingly, the present election is scheduled on 08.04.2020, i.e. Chaitra sud Poonam'. The election was declared by the trust on 11.12.2019 and the same was also duly published. In exercise of power conferred under Clause-45 read with other clauses of the scheme, the election rules pertaining to the election of temple board have been framed and modified from time to time by the temple board after obtaining the approval of the Charity Commissioner. 8. The root of the dispute appears to be in the year 2002 when “Satsang Mahasabha” passed two resolutions, by which Acharyashri Ajendraprasad Pandey was deposed as 'Acharya' of 'Vadtal Gadi', alleging non-performance of religious duties and financial irregularities. Since 2002, the Trust has seen several rounds of litigations which are going on till date. MCA No.3154 of 2009 was filed before this Court seeking amendment in the existing scheme which has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.183 of 1973. After first round of litigation right up to the Apex Court, this Court by its detailed judgment and order dated 09.01.2015 has partially allowed the said MCA only to an extent by making amendment in clause-45 of the scheme. As far as various allegations which have been made against the Trust about inclusion /exclusion of the voters etc. are concerned, the Court has recorded specific finding that the said allegations are without any material and proof. The Division Bench of this Court, while deciding the said MCA, has also considered the election rules which have been sought to be amended by the present respondent No.2 Trust by resolution No.9 dated 22.09.2010, which is now approved by the Charity Commissioner by the impugned order and has also accepted the said modifications suggested by the Trust. The Division Bench of this Court, while deciding the said MCA, has also considered the election rules which have been sought to be amended by the present respondent No.2 Trust by resolution No.9 dated 22.09.2010, which is now approved by the Charity Commissioner by the impugned order and has also accepted the said modifications suggested by the Trust. During the course of hearing of the said MCA, trust had also given an undertaking to the Division Bench of this Court for the purpose of installing confidence in the election on part of the board, declaration and writing was also made which the trust has declared that it shall appoint election officer from amongst former District Judges and/or former City Civil Judge and the appointee so chosen must not have conflict or interest and that he may not be the 'satsangee' of Laxminarayan Dev Temple. The declaration made on behalf of the trust which has been recorded by this Hon'ble Court in its judgment and order dated 09.01.2015 in para-20 reads as under:- “20. We may record that at the conclusion of the hearing, upon further inquiry by the Court, in respect to instilling confidence in the election on behalf of the Board, following declaration in writing has been made by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Shelat, which has been duly signed by Mr. Murgan Purohit appearing for the Board with Mr. Shelat. The same reads as under:- (A) The Election Officer shall be appointed from amongst former District Judges and/or Former City Civil Judges and that the appointee so chosen must have no conflict of interest and that may not be Satsangi of the Lakshmi Narayan Dev Temple. (B) The Election Officer shall be in the sole charge of conduct of election who shall be assisted by the nominee of the Charity Commissioner. (C) The Election Officer shall consider the objection against the preliminary voter’s list in the presence and with the assistance of the Chairman and Members of the Managing Committee and/or Chief Executive Kothari. The final voter’s list shall be prepared as per the direction of the Election Officer. (D) During the conduct of election the members of the Managing Committee shall not associate themselves in the conduction of election save and except where the Election Officer requires their attendance. (E) The election rules will be so modified as above and sought approval from the Charity Commissioner. (D) During the conduct of election the members of the Managing Committee shall not associate themselves in the conduction of election save and except where the Election Officer requires their attendance. (E) The election rules will be so modified as above and sought approval from the Charity Commissioner. However, the election to be held this year shall be in accordance with what has been submitted before this Hon’ble Court.” 8.1 Accordingly, as per the above-referred undertaking, while disposing of the aforesaid MCA, this Court has given the following directions:- “52. In view of the above, we find that the following directions shall meet with the ends of justice:- (1) Respondent No.1 I.e. Trust of Shree Laxminarayan Dev Temple at Vadtal and the Temples subordinate to it shall abide by the declarations made as reproduced in above referred paragraph No.20 (A) to (E), and the election rules shall be modified accordingly. (2) It is further directed that following second proviso shall be added to Clause No.45 under the Head of (xiv) Miscellaneous of the final scheme with the further words as under:- But the election officer so appointed for the particular election by the Board shall not be removed or substituted after the process of election has started until the result is declared of such election, unless permission is granted for his removal or substitution by the Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case upon the application made by the Board. Further, the election officer shall also be at liberty to apply to the Court for any opinion, advice or direction on any question to the Court. The Election Officer and the Board shall act accordingly.” 8.2 The Court also considered the modification of election rules filed by the trust vide Exh.1 in paragraph No.43 while deciding MCA No.3154 of 2009. The relevant para-43 of the judgment reads as under:- “43. At this stage, we may record that after the Rules of 2004, which were sanctioned by the Charity Commissioner at the relevant point of time, the Board vide its Resolution No.9 dated 22.9.2010 after filing of the present application for modification of the Scheme has resolved to amend the Election Rules and the copy of the same is supplied by Mr. Shelat during the course of the hearing. Shelat during the course of the hearing. As per the proposed amendment of the Election Rules vide Clause (Rule) No.2, it has been provided that after the publication of preliminary voters’ list, Board shall appoint former District Judge and Sessions Judge or City Sessions Judge as Election observer and the said election observer shall supervise the whole process of election and shall also undertake the aspect of consideration of the objections and finalization of the voters’ list, counting of votes, printing of ballet boxes, objections against the nomination forms, and the finalization thereof and the declaration of the result of the election. As per the said proposed Rules, the Board shall request the Charity Commissioner to appoint one person from his office to assist at the election at the cost of the temple board. But as per Rule 5 of the proposed Election Rules, objections are to be finalized by the Board and the decision of the Board shall be final until election, which, in our prima facie view, may not be in conformity with entrusting power as per Clause 2 of the proposed Election Rules to former District and Sessions Judge or City Sessions Judge, who may be appointed as observer but if interpreted by reconciliation of both the provisions of proposed Rules of Rule5 with Rule 2, it can be said that the power of the Board to take final decision upon the objections to the preliminary voters’ list is maintained, but such power shall be subject to the supervisory power of the election observer. At the initial stage, during the course of the hearing, attempt was made by Mr. Shelat to contend that the election observer to be appointed as per the proposed Rule is not expressly given power to have complete command of the situation in the process of election, but Mr. Shelat submitted that as such it is intended to give power to the election observer, who may be former District and Sessions Judge and City Sessions Judge. However, thereafter, at the conclusion of the hearing by way of a clarification and/or to instill confidence in the process of election, the declaration has been made on behalf of the Board, which is reproduced in the earlier paragraph. However, thereafter, at the conclusion of the hearing by way of a clarification and/or to instill confidence in the process of election, the declaration has been made on behalf of the Board, which is reproduced in the earlier paragraph. As per the said declaration, the Election Officer is to be appointed by the Board from amongst the former District Judge or former City Civil Judges, who may not have conflict of interest or may not be Satsangi of Laxminarayan Dev Temple. It is also declared that the Election Officer shall be in sole charge of the conduct of election, who is to be assisted by the nominee of the Charity Commissioner. Further, it is declared that such Election Officer shall consider the preliminary voters’ list and the final voters’ list is to be prepared as per the direction of the Election Officer. It is declared that during the conduct of the election, the managing committee shall not associate with the conduct of the election, save and except where the Election Officer requires their assistance. It is declared that the Election Rules will be so modified as above and the approval will be sought from the Charity Commissioner. Such is stated to be for the future election, but election to be held this year shall be in accordance with what has been submitted before this Court.” 9. It is in accordance with such directions that elections were conducted in the year 2015. From the record it appears that vide application Exh.1, temple board has mainly suggested that retired District & Sessions Judge or retired City Civil Judge may be appointed as election officer and under his supervision, process of election is to be conducted. The said amended rule further provides that the temple board should approach office of Charity Commissioner for appointment of any officer in assisting the election officer at the cost of the Trust as also further suggested to publish voters list with photo I.D. and has also suggested to delete rule No.4 for permanent membership. Apart from that, other suggestions were also made. The said amendments are in due compliance of the undertaking given to this Court and as per the directions of this Court in MCA No.3154 of 2009 in its final order dated 09.01.2015. The said consensus is also categorically recorded in para-13 as under:- “.... Apart from that, other suggestions were also made. The said amendments are in due compliance of the undertaking given to this Court and as per the directions of this Court in MCA No.3154 of 2009 in its final order dated 09.01.2015. The said consensus is also categorically recorded in para-13 as under:- “.... However, he fairly conceded that the prayer of the applicants is in substance for holding of the election through any independent agency, who may not be under the control of the Board... ” 9.1 Thus, the modifications which have been suggested and approved by the Charity Commissioner are required for the purpose of better election process and the same are in due compliance of the directions given by this Court. 10. The temple board vide Exh.66 has sought permission of the Charity Commissioner to further amend election Rule No.3 and the Board has suggested to amend election rule No.3 pursuant to the resolution passed by the temple board by which the board has resolved to define meaning of Satsangee and to identify real and genuine satsangee. 11. Insofar as submission of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners of taking up of application for amendment in the year 2011, it would be pertinent to mention that in connection, Civil Application No.8956 of 2011 was filed, wherein order was passed on 23.08.2011, wherein it is directed that as the main matter, MCA No.3154 of 2009 is pending, authority was not to take any step to complicate the issue any further. Another order is passed on 11.03.2016 in Civil Application No.2283 of 2016 in SCA No.16894 of 2015, whereby it was ordered that it will be open for the petitioners to make application for adjournment before the Charity Commissioner and it is in this regard that the application filed in the year 2011 could not be taken up for disposal. It is only when elections are now to be declared, which is in consonance with the scheme of the trust to hold elections, that issue of approval of election rules has arisen and therefore, taking up of the application cannot be considered to be ill-timed or taken up with any oblique reason. 12. It is only when elections are now to be declared, which is in consonance with the scheme of the trust to hold elections, that issue of approval of election rules has arisen and therefore, taking up of the application cannot be considered to be ill-timed or taken up with any oblique reason. 12. Insofar as submission of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners regarding publication of notice on 11.12.2019, i.e. to say on the date on which the impugned order is passed, it would be appropriate to refer to the prevailing rules for election titled as the Election Rules framed under the scheme framed by the High Court dated 21.08.1974 and modified till date, which provide for preparation of preliminary list of voters on 'Magsar sud Chaud' before the election of the Board. The election programme framed accordingly is as under:- Sl. No. Details of Election Process Date and Day according to Era-2076 Date according to Application 1. To Publish primary Electoral Roll Magsar Sud-14, Wednesday 11/12/2019 2. Last date for receiving objection application against the published Electoral Roll Magsar Vad Amas, Thursday 26/12/2019 3. To publish final Electoral Roll Maha Sud Punam, Sunday 09/02/2020 4. Commencement of filing Nomination form Maha Sud Punam, Sunday 09/02/2020 5. Last date for submitting Nomination form Fagan Sud Chaudas, Wednesday 08/03/2020 6. Date of Voting Chaitra Sud Punam, Wednesday 08/04/2020 7. Date of Counting Chaitra Vad Trij, Friday 10/04/2020 12.1 The aforesaid would indicate that the date decided as per the election rules in 'Vikram' calender being 'Magsar sud Chaud' coincided with 11.12.2019 and therefore, the Court is not inclined to attribute any meaning to the action on the part of the respondent to issue public notice with regard to election. 13. The Court finds that the Charity Commissioner has undertaken necessary exercise scrutinizing amendment in the rules for election and has also made observations so as to bring such rules in consonance with the directions contained in the order of this Court in CAV judgment dated 09.01.2015 in MCA No.3154 of 2009. The Court does not find any error much less scope for interference on the grounds mentioned in the petition. The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. No order as to costs. 14. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil Application does not survive. The Court does not find any error much less scope for interference on the grounds mentioned in the petition. The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. No order as to costs. 14. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil Application does not survive. Disposed of accordingly. 15. At this stage a request is made on behalf of the petitioners to continue the order of status quo granted by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2019, which is objected by the respondent. Considering the fact that the issue involves conduct of election, when the election program is already declared, the request is rejected.