JUDGMENT Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 22/4/2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Assistant Charity Commissioner, Gondia below Application (Exh.1) in Misc. Application No.106/2019, thereby rejecting the Application under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 [hereinafter be referred to as MPT Act for the sake of brevity] filed by the Petitioners seeking correction of Schedule-I in terms of the Judgment and order passed in Change Report Inquiry No.680/2012. 3. The Petitioners are trustees of Shri Sant Dhnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Katurli, Tahsil Amgaon, District Gondia registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act and also under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The names of the Petitioners are recorded as trustees in Schedule-I of the said Trust. 4. The Respondent No.1 filed Change Report Inquiry No.680/2012. The Petitioners raised objection to the said Change Report. Evidence was led in the said Inquiry and the Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected the Change Report Inquiry No.680/2012. In the Judgment it is observed that the documents placed on record by the Objectors/Petitioners show that the date of birth of reporting trustee/Respondent No.1 is 7/1/1967. In the cross-examination Respondent No.1 is also admitted that his date of birth is 7/1/1967. The trust was formed on 15/10/1984. As per clause 5(a) of the constitution of the trust, any Indian citizen, who has completed the age of 18 years is capable to be admitted in the said Sanstha. This fact is also admitted by the reporting trustee/Respondent no.1 in the cross-examination. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, therefore, observed as under : "I hold that, at the time of formation of the trust, reporting trustee Shri Kishor Kore was minor and not completed the age of 18 years. Reporting trustee deposed that he is life member of the trust, but in cross-examination he admitted that he is not filed the evidence in respect of payment of fee of life members as prescribed in constitution of the trust. He also admits that proof is not available with him. So, under such circumstances, his membership is doubtful. If original right is illegal, then acts are not legal. Burden of membership is on reporting trustee but he failed to prove it. He also admits that proof is not available with him. So, under such circumstances, his membership is doubtful. If original right is illegal, then acts are not legal. Burden of membership is on reporting trustee but he failed to prove it. Therefore, reporting trustee, Kishor Kore is not even entitled to continue as a member of the trust as his admission in the trust is totally illegal, and when beginning is illegal, then end will also be illegal." 5. By relying on the above observations, the Petitioners filed Application under Section 26 of the MPT Act seeking deletion of the name of Respondent No.1 from Schedule-I of the said Trust contending that a categorical finding is recorded by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner that the Respondent No.1 is not a member of the Trust and the said Judgment is not stayed or set aside by any competent authority or court. Though the said finding is recorded, the Respondent no.1 is posing himself as a trustee/Secretary of the said Trust and is misappropriating the property and funds of the trust. Therefore, in terms of Section 26(2) of the MPT Act, Schedule-I of the Trust needs to be corrected by deleting the name of Respondent No.1. 6. The Respondent No.1 opposed the said application by filing reply stating that the order passed in Change Report Inquiry No.680/2012 is challenged before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in Appeal No.86/2017, which is fixed for final hearing. He further submitted that it is not stated under which Act the said Application has been moved. The Application is misleading and is abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed for rejection of the said Application. 7. The Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected the Application holding that the Application does not disclose under which Act it is filed. It is also observed that in the Judgment of Change Report Inquiry No.680/2012, no specific order is passed to delete the name of Respondent No.1 from Schedule-I of the Trust, therefore, there is no reason to amend Schedule-I of the Trust by holding that the decision or order passed under Section 22 of the MPT Act cannot be executed under Section 26 of the said Act, and therefore, the Application filed by the Petitioners is not tenable. Therefore, rejected the said Application. 8. Heard Mr. Dhandekar, the learned Counsel for Petitioners and Ms. Mehta, the learned AGP for Respondent No.2. Therefore, rejected the said Application. 8. Heard Mr. Dhandekar, the learned Counsel for Petitioners and Ms. Mehta, the learned AGP for Respondent No.2. None appears for the Respondent No.1. 9. Mr. Dhandekar, the learned Counsel for Petitioners strenuously submitted that since a specific finding is recorded by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Inquiry No.680/2012 that the Respondent No.1 could not have become member at the time of formation of the Trust, since he was minor at that time. He submits that Respondent No.1 has mislead and misconstrued the submissions and the Assistant Charity Commissioner has erroneously rejected the said Application (Exh.1). The Respondent No.2 was duty bound to delete his name from Schedule-I by recording the said change. He submits that in view of the provisions contained in Sections 22(3), 26 and 68 (a) (c) of the MPT Act, the Authority was under obligation to record the change and delete the name of Respondent No.1 from Schedule-I of the said Trust. He, therefore, submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 10. Ms. Mehta, the learned AGP supports the impugned order. She submits that the Respondent No.1 has filed Appeal No.86/2017 on 20/4/2017 under Section 70 of the MPT Act. The Application (Exh.4) for grant of stay was filed by the Respondent No.1 and the said Application is fixed for hearing on 23/11/2021. 11. I have gone through the Memo of the Writ Petition, documents filed on record along with the Writ Petition and the written submissions filed on behalf of Respondent No.1. 12. In the written submissions it is specifically averred by the Respondent No.1 that he has challenged the decision in Inquiry No.680/2012 by filing Appeal No.86/2017, which is pending for adjudication. The Petitioners have not made any submission in this behalf. 13. Taking into consideration the fact that Appeal No.86/2017 is filed challenging the decision in Inquiry No.680/2012 and the Application for stay (Exh.4) is kept for hearing on 23/11/2021, I am not inclined to entertain the Petition filed by the Petitioners. No merit is found in the challenge raised by the Petitioners in the present Petition and the prayers made in the Petition cannot be entertained at this stage. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 14. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.