JUDGMENT Mangesh S. Patil, J. - Heard. 2. Rule in both the Writ Petitions. It is made returnable forthwith. The learned Advocates for the respective respondents from both the Writ Petitions waive service. Even the learned A.G.P. waives service. At the joint request of the parties, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Irrespective of the exhaustive arguments advanced by the learned Senior Advocates Mr. R.N. Dhorde and Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukkh on behalf of the petitioners and all the learned Advocates for the respondents, touching number of disputed questions of facts, the matters revolve around the only question as to whether a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable in view of the remedy of a revision under Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) would be the appropriate and efficacious remedy to challenge an order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner or the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Act thereby provisionally accepting a Change Report submitted under Section 22(1) of the Act. 4. The facts as are relevant for deciding the Writ Petitions may be summarized as under: (i) As usual, there has been a dispute amongst the members of a Public Trust duly registered under the Act. The petitioners belong to one group whereas the contesting respondents are from the other group. Both the sides submitted several Change Reports under Section 22 of the Act. All these Change Reports were rejected by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner and even the appeals preferred by both the sides were dismissed. Some of those matters are now before this Court in the form of several Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 6268/2019, 6333/2019 and 6355/2019. (ii) While all these Writ Petitions are still pending before this Court, the contesting respondents filed the present Change Report bearing No.8/2021 on 11.01.2021. Alongwith the Change Report, they also submitted an application (Exh-2) purportedly under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Act and the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner passed the impugned order on the same day granting provisional approval to the change. Alongwith the Change Report, they also submitted an application (Exh-2) purportedly under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Act and the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner passed the impugned order on the same day granting provisional approval to the change. (iii) Alleging that the order regarding provisional acceptance of the Change Report was obtained by suppressing various material facts and circumstances, the petitioners submitted applications (Exh-17 and Exh-17A), praying that the order be set aside or stayed. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected these applications by order dated 28. 01.2021. The petitioners are assailing both these orders, one granting provisional approval and the other refusing to recall or stay the order. 5. In accordance with the stand of the petitioners, the learned Senior Advocates extensively argued and endeavoured to demonstrate as to how the contesting respondents had practised fraud and even managed to procure the orders hand-in-gloves with the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. They also strenuously submitted that even a proceeding has subsequently been filed before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner for transferring the Change Report enquiry to some other Assistant Charity Commissioner. 6. On a query being put to the learned Senior Advocates regarding availability of alternate and efficacious remedy, they would submit that this Court has ample powers in exercise of writ jurisdiction to set right any illegality, more so when the impugned order has been passed in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. So far as the provisions of the Act are concerned, they would submit that the impugned order is not a finding and no appeal under Section 70 of the Act would lie. They would also refer to following couple of the decisions of the coordinate benches of this Court: (i) Mukesh Nashikrao Tirpude & Anr. Vs. Wamanrao Tatobaji Kombade & Ors.; 2008(4) Mh. L.J. 562 (ii) Kashyap Odhavji Thakkar Vs. Chandrakant R. Ganatra and Others; 2019(1) Mh.L.J.102 7. Per contra, the learned Advocates Mr. N.B. Khandare, Mr. S.V. Adwant and Mr. D.J. Chaudhary, for the respective contesting respondents, would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others Vs. L.J. 562 (ii) Kashyap Odhavji Thakkar Vs. Chandrakant R. Ganatra and Others; 2019(1) Mh.L.J.102 7. Per contra, the learned Advocates Mr. N.B. Khandare, Mr. S.V. Adwant and Mr. D.J. Chaudhary, for the respective contesting respondents, would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited; 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440 and submit that since the impugned order is an order passed in a substantive proceeding under Section 22 of the Act in the form of a Chang Report enquiry, though it does not record a finding so that an appeal under Section 70 would lie, a revision under Section 70A of the Act would certainly be an efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. 8. The arguments would be better appreciated by re-producing the relevant provisions: Sec. 22. (1) Where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under section 17, the trustee shall, within 90 days from the date of the occurrence of such change, or where any change is desired in such entries in the interest of the administration of such public trust, report such change or proposed change to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in charge of the Public Trusts Registration Office where the register is kept. Such report shall be made in the prescribed form. Provided that, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may extend the period of ninety days for reporting the change on being satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not reporting the change within the stipulated period subject to payment of costs by the reporting trustee, which shall be credited to the Public Trust Administration Fund. (1A) .. (2) For the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register kept under section 17 or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the particulars recorded in the register, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner. (1A) .. (2) For the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register kept under section 17 or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the particulars recorded in the register, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner. Provided that, in the case of change in the names and addresses of the trustees and the managers or the mode of succession to the office of the trusteeship and managership, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may pass order provisionally accepting the change within period of fifteen working days and issue a notice inviting objections to such change within thirty days from the date of publication of such notice; Provided further that, if no objections are received within the said period of thirty days, the order accepting the change provisionally under the first proviso shall become final and entry thereof shall be taken in the register kept under section 17 in the prescribed manner; Provided also that, if objections are received within the said period of thirty days, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may hold an enquiry in the prescribed manner and record a finding, as provided by sub-section (3) of this section, within three months from the date of filing objections. (3) If the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner, as the case may be, after receiving a report under sub-section (1) and holding an inquiry, if necessary, under sub-section (2), or merely after holding an inquiry under the said sub-section (2), is satisfied that a change has occurred in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under section 17 in regard to a particular public trust, or that the trust should be removed from the register by reason of the change, resulting in both the office of the administration of the trust and the whole of the trust property ceasing to be situated in the State, he shall record a finding with the reasons therefor to that effect and if he is not so satisfied he shall record a finding with reasons therefor accordingly. Any such finding shall be appealable to the Charity Commissioner. Any such finding shall be appealable to the Charity Commissioner. The Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner shall amend or delete the entries in the said register in accordance with the finding which requires an amendment or deletion of entries and if appeals or applications were made against such finding, in accordance with the final decision of the competent authority provided by this Act. The amendments in the entries so made subject to any further amendment on occurrence of a change or any cancellation of entries, shall be final and conclusive. (3A) .. (3B) .. (4) .. Sec. 70. (1) An appeal against the finding or order of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may be filed to the Charity Commissioner in the following cases: (a) the finding and order, if any, under section 20; (b) the finding under section 22; (b-1)the finding under section 22A; (c) the finding under section 28; (c-1) the order under section 41C; (c-2) the order under section 50A; (d) the order under sub-section (3) of section 54; (d-1) an order under sub-section (1) of section 79; (e) an order confirming or amending the record under section 79AA; (2) .. (3) .. 70A. (1) The Charity Commissioner may in any of the cases mentioned in section 70, either suo motu or on application call for and examine the record and proceedings of such case before any Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of any finding or order recorded or passed by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner and may either annul, reverse, modify or confirm the said finding or order or may direct the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner to make further inquiry or take such additional evidence as he may think necessary or he may himself take such additional evidence: Provided that the Charity Commissioner shall not record or pass any orders without giving the party affected thereby an opportunity of being heard. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall entitle the Charity Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any case (a) during the period in which an appeal under section 70 can lie against any finding recorded by the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner in such case, or (b) in which an order has been passed either in an appeal made under section 70. 9. 9. As can be appreciated from the scheme of Sections 70 and 70A of the Act, an appeal would lie to the Charity Commissioner against a finding and/or an order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner or Assistant Charity Commissioner passed under Sections 20, 22, etc. of the Act. Since to the extent of an enquiry under Section 22, clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 70 requires that there has to be a finding under that provision against which an appeal would lie, certainly no appeal would lie against an interlocutory order as has been observed by this Court in the case of Mukesh Nashikrao Tirpude & Anr. (supra). 10. However, as the wording of Section 70A is explicit and empowers a Charity Commissioner either suo motu or on an application to call for and examine the record and proceedings of any of the cases mentioned in Section 70, which covers even case or enquiry pending under Section 22, the impugned order having been passed in the nature of an interlocutory order, granting provisional approval under first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 22, it would be a case squarely covered by Section 70A. 11. As can be appreciated from the wordings of Section 70, the Legislature has consciously used the words `finding and `order, wherever it intended that an appeal would lie. Any such distinction in the finding and order is conspicuously absent in Section 70A. Meaning thereby that irrespective of the nature of the order, whether it is merely an order or a finding, in a substantive proceeding mentioned in Section 70, the Charity Commissioner has the powers to call for and examine the record and proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of any finding or order recorded and/or passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner or Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the impugned order having been passed in a case of a Change Report enquiry under Section 22, remedy of revision under Section 70A is indeed an equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. Consequently the writ petitions would not be maintainable. 12. There is one more aspect. It is trite that while exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in appeal and decide the disputed questions of facts. Consequently the writ petitions would not be maintainable. 12. There is one more aspect. It is trite that while exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in appeal and decide the disputed questions of facts. Therefore, this Court would be deprived of an opportunity of having an opinion of the revisional authority, which is entitled to undertake even the scrutiny of disputed facts. This would be an additional ground why it would not be just and proper for this Court to proceed and decide these Writ Petitions skipping remedy of revision available to the petitioners. 13. In this respect, one needs only to refer to and rely upon the exposition of law on the subject by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others (supra). I do not intend to burden this judgment by re-producing the observations of the Supreme Court. 14. The decision cited on behalf of the petitioners in the case of Kashyap Odhavji Thakkar (supra) does not specifically refer to and decide the question being raised in these Writ Petitions. The petitioners are not entitled to reap any benefit therefrom. 15. The Writ Petitions are dismissed, keeping open the remedy to the petitioners to prefer revisions under Section 70A of the Act. The time spent in prosecuting the present Writ Petitions may be duly considered by the learned Charity Commissioner under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the dispute and the learned Charity Commissioner shall decide the revisions on their own merits. The Rule is discharged. 16. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petitions, Civil Application No.10833/2021 in Writ Petition No.10498/2021 is rejected. [MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE 17. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned Advocate Mr. V.S. Kadam for one group of the petitioners points out that the interim relief was operating in favour of the petitioners till date and that may be continued for a reasonable period, now that the petitioners have been found entitled to prefer a revision under Section 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 as well. 18. The learned Advocates for the respondents strongly oppose the request. 19. Since admittedly the interim relief has been in operation till date, it shall stand extended for a period of three weeks.