ORDER : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by appellants – original petitioners, challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10671 of 2018. 2. The background of facts giving rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal are that the appellants – original petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.250/- to Rs. 500/- to become members of respondent No.1 – Trust. The said deposit has the effect of becoming life members of the respondent - Trust. The appellants alongwith several other beneficiaries have deposited the said amount of Rs.250/- in the account of respondent No.1 – Trust at the State Bank of India, Godhra and requested respondent No.2 to issue a receipt for the same. However, the same has not been accepted, which has given rise to filing of an application before the learned Charity Commissioner under Section 41(A) of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The said application came up for consideration before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara which was registered as Judicial Misc. Application No. 41 of 2016. However, vide order dated 30.01.2018, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not accepted the said application. As a result of this, the appellants – original petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by way of writ petition for seeking reliefs in the following form: “(21) (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara Divisions, Vadodara, in Misc. Civil Application No.41 of 2016 (at Annexure- hereto) and further be pleased to grant prayers as prayed for by the petitioners herein in application being Misc. Civil Application No.41 of 2016; (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may please to direct the respondent nos. 2 – 5 herein to permit the petitioners herein to participate in the meetings of the respondent no.1-Trust; (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;” 3. 2 – 5 herein to permit the petitioners herein to participate in the meetings of the respondent no.1-Trust; (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;” 3. The said writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, who after hearing all the respective parties to the proceedings, was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 13.09.2019. It is this order of dismissal of the writ petition which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. We have heard Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners, and Shri M. I. Merchant, learned counsel for the caveators – respondent Nos.1 to 5. With the consent of learned counsels and upon their request, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners, has vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not only unjust and arbitrary, but is not in consonance with the terms of the trust deed. It has been submitted that the trust deed is silent and invests no power of rejection to becoming life member unlike other membership. Hence, the moment the amount determined to become a life member of Rs. 250/- to Rs.500/- is paid, the person depositing automatically becomes a life member of the Trust. Therefore, non-consideration of such request, despite a deposit, is beyond the terms of the trust deed. There is no power with the General Board or Governing Body of the Trust to refuse such membership. The learned Charity Commissioner has misled the trust deed itself which ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge. 5.1. Ms. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners has further contended and drawn our attention to the terms of the trust deed which indicates various types of membership. By referring to Clause-3 of the trust deed, a contention is raised that so far as life membership is concerned, there is no requirement of any specific permission. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be corrected. 5.2. Ms. By referring to Clause-3 of the trust deed, a contention is raised that so far as life membership is concerned, there is no requirement of any specific permission. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be corrected. 5.2. Ms. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners, has further contended that in the past also some similar events have taken place, by virtue of which, the persons have been enrolled as a life member upon their deposit of money, as determined by the Trust. Therefore, now to discard these appellants alongwith several others would be an act of discrimination. As such, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5.3. Ms. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners has further submitted that refusal by the Trust to accept the membership of appellants alongwith several others is only with a view to see that they cannot be ousted from the powers. In fact, by retaining power with themselves, the respondents have committed several irregularities and illegalities. Just to prevent the same, the appellants have made an attempt to become the life member so as to see that affairs of the Trust may run in a congenial atmosphere and the administration can be run effectively and precisely in the interest of members for which the Trust is set up. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated all these aspects before dismissing the petition. Having not closely perused the trust deed, the erroneous view deserves to be corrected. 5.4. With a view to strengthen the submissions, Ms. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners, has relied upon following decisions: (a) In the case of Ratilal Hansraj Gajjar versus Kamleshbhai Narsibhai Kharechha reported in 2011 (0) AIJEL-HC 224834. (b) In the case of Navinchandra Jasani versus Pravinchandra Jasani reported in 2002 (0) AIJEL-HC-208556. 5.5. By referring to the aforesaid decisions, it has been reiterated that the Charity Commissioner under Section 14(A) of the Act is sufficiently couched with the powers to issue any direction upon the Trust which may be in the best interest. Unfortunately, the Charity Commissioner has not taken care of the interest. Resultantly, the order in question requires to be corrected. No other submissions have been made. 6. To meet with the stands taken by Ms. Unfortunately, the Charity Commissioner has not taken care of the interest. Resultantly, the order in question requires to be corrected. No other submissions have been made. 6. To meet with the stands taken by Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners, Shri M. I. Merchant, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that this is nothing, but a serious attempt made by the appellants alongwith several others to usurp the power at random form the Trust Body and this serious attempt, rather, is required to be deprecated seriously. There is a set of procedures for becoming a member and the General body is vested with the power to take care of the interest of the Trust in its entirety. On the contrary, the General board has unanimously decided not to enroll such kind of members who have mischievously made an attempt to become a life member and tried to usurp the powers. It is not a simple method being adopted to deposit the amount in the bank and then to become a member. On the contrary, in large numbers inter se appellants alongwith several others have directly, without consent of the Trust, made an attempt to deposit the amount in the bank and tried to become a member, solely with a view to see that the Body may topple. This is a serious act which has rightly not been encouraged by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Charity Commissioner. It has been submitted by Shri Merchant, learned counsel that an attempt was made to do the same in past as well, but then there is a specific resolution of the General Body to not enroll such applicants. If they are aggrieved with the alleged malfunctioning, the appropriate remedy is always available for ventilating the grievance. But, this should not be as a course, to be adopted by the appellants. 6.1. Shri Merchant, learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that, on the contrary, not only was a mischievous attempt made before the Charity Commissioner, but here also, the averments contained in the petition itself are such that a first impression is given that these two petitioners are only trying to become the life member. 6.1. Shri Merchant, learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that, on the contrary, not only was a mischievous attempt made before the Charity Commissioner, but here also, the averments contained in the petition itself are such that a first impression is given that these two petitioners are only trying to become the life member. But, this petition has been submitted only by two and relief is sought, by virtue of which, all persons who have deposited the amount are to be treated and considered as a member of the Trust. Here also, an attempt is made of that nature which has rightly not been encouraged by the learned single Judge. This being a position, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in the eyes of law, which does not call for any interference. 6.2. Shri Merchant, learned counsel for the caveators has further drawn our attention to some of the clauses contained in the trust deed. Along with that, a specific reply that has been submitted before the Charity Commissioner is also brought to our notice and has reiterated that this deposit was behind the back of the Trust, neither with the concurrence, nor with even intimation. When that is so, this mischievous attempt, according to the learned counsel, has rightly not been encouraged. There is no error of whatsoever nature being committed by the learned Single Judge, which may require any interference. Accordingly, it is requested that the present Letters Patent Appeal, having no merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the relevant record attached with the present Letters Patent Appeal compilation, a prima facie look at the same would clearly indicate that the present appellants – original petitioners, alongwith several others have directly made an attempt to deposit the amount in the State Bank of India, in the account of the Trust by taking advantage of so called free membership upon deposit. This wholesome attempt to become life member is an eye catching incident for the Trust. As a result of this, it appears that the General Board of the Trust has refused the drafts in respect of such payment and it was unanimously decided by the General Board to not accept such amount. This wholesome attempt to become life member is an eye catching incident for the Trust. As a result of this, it appears that the General Board of the Trust has refused the drafts in respect of such payment and it was unanimously decided by the General Board to not accept such amount. A specific resolution also appears to have been passed by the Trust that has been taken into consideration by the Joint Charity Commissioner, as well as by the learned Single Judge. The order that has been passed on 30.01.2018 clearly indicates application of mind. After considering all the relevant record and appreciating the attempt of appellants, the Charity Commissioner has desisted himself from exercising powers under Section 41(A) of the Act. Such reasoned order appears to have taken note of the relevant clauses contained in the trust deed and the relevant record and the powers of the General Board coupled with the analysis of material in the context of Section 41(A) of the Act. When that is so, the order is not possible to be construed as perverse in any form. 8. So far as the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge upon appreciating and examining the validity of the order of the Charity Commissioner are concerned, it appears that the learned Single Judge has also independently examined the trust deed and clearly found that such attempt of the appellants along with several others cannot be treated as innocent attempt. The said request, rightly, has not been considered by the Charity Commissioner. To become a life member, a decision needs a little adjudicatory process. As a result of this, the learned Single Judge has not considered the challenge of the appellants. On the contrary, while arriving at a conclusion, the unanimous decision of the General Board has also been taken into consideration vis-a-vis powers of Section 41(A) of the Act. When that is so, the Court appears to have applied its mind to the real controversy involved in the proceeding. We see no error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. 9. Additionally, we have seen the aims and object of the Trust, set up for benevolent activity to promote secular and physical education of the Muslims and Non-Muslims of the District of the Panchmahals, which is a backward area and such is the noble object for which the Trust is set up. 9. Additionally, we have seen the aims and object of the Trust, set up for benevolent activity to promote secular and physical education of the Muslims and Non-Muslims of the District of the Panchmahals, which is a backward area and such is the noble object for which the Trust is set up. Such kind of attempts, rightly, have been discouraged by the Charity Commissioner as well as by the learned Single Judge. On the contrary, upon reading the overall trust deed, it appears that there is a power with the General Board to take a decision in the overall interest of the Trust. Therefore, no clause of the trust deed can be read in isolation. On the contrary, a close reading, that has been undertaken by the Charity Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge, we do not have a different opinion to substitute with. As a result of this, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in the absence of any distinguishable material or any other better submission. As such, keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph No.5 in the case of The Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited versus The workmen of Narendra & Company reported in 2016 (3) SCC 340 , we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. So far as the grievance voiced about malfunctioning of the Trust and its activity are concerned, the Charity Commissioner under the Act is invested with the sufficient power to examine. However, under the guise of so-called allegations, this kind of attempt has rightly not been encouraged. As a result of this, the appeal lacks merit and the same is not entertainable. 11. Now, coming to the decisions, that have been cited and pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellants – original petitioners, we do not have any different opinion on the proposition of law, on the issue of Section 41(A) of the Act. But, the circumstances here, in the present case, are although different, as a result of which, though there is a power under Section 41(A) of the Act with the Charity Commissioner has in peculiar background, desisted himself from exercising discretion, which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. But, the circumstances here, in the present case, are although different, as a result of which, though there is a power under Section 41(A) of the Act with the Charity Commissioner has in peculiar background, desisted himself from exercising discretion, which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. We are of the considered opinion that no interference be made and the said decision is not possible to be applied by us in the present different background and fact to dislodge the conclusion. Hence, no case is made by the appellants – original petitioners. 12. At this juncture, we may submit that the law on the precedent is by now well recognized in a catena of decisions that have suggested that if the facts of the case are different, even one additional fact would make a world of difference in applying the precedent, therefore, we are unable to allow the appellants – original petitioners, to stretch the decisions referred to above in a different set of circumstance of the present case on hand. Resultantly, the appellants – original petitioners have not been able to make out any case to interfere. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 13. Since the main appeal is dismissed, connected Civil Application also stands dismissed.