ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that the respondent No.1 be directed to provide the petitioners an opportunity of hearing before deciding the Inquiry No.358 of 2020. 2. By way of draft amendment, petitioners have also challenged the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 on applications filed by the petitioners for leading evidence. 3. Draft amendment is allowed. Petitioners to carry out the same forthwith. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Saurabh Soparkar assisted by learned advocate Mr. Mohit Gupta for the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore assisted by learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the respondent No.2 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala assisted by learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas for the interested parties. 5. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under: 5.1. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the same was registered on 03.02.2011. It is stated that the Charity Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 05.08.2019 to some of the members of the governing body of the petitioner society calling upon the said members to show cause as to why the petitioner society should not be registered under the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trust Act’ for short) and as to why the petitioner society’s registration should not be cancelled and prosecution should not be initiated against them for not registering the society under the provisions of the Trust Act. It is stated that pursuant to the show cause notice, it was agreed amongst the members of the governing body of the petitioner society that appropriate reply should be filed opposing the said notice. However, it is alleged that the then Chairman of the petitioner society viz. Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel – respondent No.2 herein, deceptively got the signatures of the members of the governing body of the petitioner society on the reply and consented to register the petitioner society under the provisions of the Trust Act. Thereafter, on 30.01.2020, the Charity Commissioner directed the members of the petitioner society to move an application before the respondent No.1 to register the petitioner society as a trust under the provisions of the Trust Act. Thereafter, on 30.01.2020, the Charity Commissioner directed the members of the petitioner society to move an application before the respondent No.1 to register the petitioner society as a trust under the provisions of the Trust Act. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners by filing Special Civil Application Nos.6591 of 2020 as well as 11024 of 2020, wherein, this Court has issued notice. It is further alleged that the then Chairman Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel was acting against the interest of the petitioner society and therefore he was removed from the post of Chairman vide Resolution dated 02.07.2020. In spite of that, he called the meeting on 16.07.2020. Civil Suit No.553 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner society for permanent injunction against the respondent No.2 Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel. On 30.09.2020, the City Civil Court passed an order and granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner society restraining the respondent No.2 to represent the petitioner society in any manner. Against the said order, respondent No.2 filed an Appeal from Order No.104 of 2020, which is pending before this Court. It is also stated that respondent No.2 also filed Civil Suit No.628 of 2020 for declaration that the resolutions dated 02.07.2020 as well as dated 18.07.2020 passed by the petitioner society are bad in law. 5.2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 18 of the Trust Act on 27.07.2020 in the name and on behalf of the petitioner society for registering the petitioner society as a public trust under the provisions of the Trust Act. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has initiated inquiry under Section 19 of the Trust Act. The petitioners had filed their objections. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed an application for leading evidence in the matter for demonstrating that the petitioner society is not a public trust. In the meantime, petitioner society also moved withdrawal application and pointed out to the respondent No.1 that it does not want to pursue the said application for registering the petitioner society under the Trust Act. The respondent No.1 has placed the said withdrawal application for hearing along with the main application. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Special Civil Application No.15330 of 2020, wherein this Court has issued notice on 03.12.2020. 5.3. The respondent No.1 has placed the said withdrawal application for hearing along with the main application. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Special Civil Application No.15330 of 2020, wherein this Court has issued notice on 03.12.2020. 5.3. In aforesaid background of the case, it is further submitted that Inquiry No.358 of 2020 was listed before the respondent No.1 for hearing on 26.02.2021. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 has stated in open Court that all the applications filed by the petitioners are rejected and with respect to the main matter, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners. It is also alleged by the petitioners that respondent No.1 has further stated that petitioners can come and see the order in the main matter on 06.03.2021. 5.4. In the draft amendment, petitioners have stated that now the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 has been passed by the respondent No.1 on the applications filed by the petitioners for leading evidence and by way of the said order, the applications filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. Petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar appearing for the petitioners referred the relevant documents produced along with the petition and thereafter referred the applications filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.1. After referring to one of such applications, copy of which is placed on record at page 143, it is submitted that one of the petitioners filed the said application and requested that said petitioner – Mr. Anil Chimanlal Agarwal be permitted to lead evidence in the matter to adjudicate the said application. It was also prayed in the said application that present respondent No.2 – Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel be summoned to remain present for cross-examination and also issue summons to all concerned and interested parties, who are either supporting the application filed by Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel or opposing the same to adjudicate the said application. It is also prayed that appropriate direction be given for taking the deposition/evidence of learned Charity Commissioner as the same has direct bearing in the matter, in the interest of justice. Learned Senior Advocate also referred the endorsement made by learned advocate of the opposite party on the Pursish given by the petitioners and thereafter referred to the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.1. Learned Senior Advocate also referred the endorsement made by learned advocate of the opposite party on the Pursish given by the petitioners and thereafter referred to the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.1. After referring to the impugned order, it is submitted that the application filed by the petitioners below Exh.144 to 147 have been dismissed by observing that petitioners are trying to delay the proceedings and the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the said applications below Exh.144 to 147 are not clear. It is also observed that no direction can be issued to the Charity Commissioner as prayed for by the petitioners in the said applications. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Soparkar, at this stage, refers the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Trust Act as well as Rules 7 and 11 of the Bombay Public Trusts (Gujarat) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short). It is submitted that inquiry under Section 19 of the Trust Act is required to be conducted as per the aforesaid Rules. At this stage, learned counsel has also referred Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 as well as the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thereafter submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to inquiry under Section 19 of the Trust Act. Learned counsel would, thereafter, contend that the respondent No.1 has not conducted the inquiry as per the aforesaid Rules and wrongly rejected the applications filed by the petitioners. 8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kuberbhai Shivdas and others v. Purshottamdas Kalyandas and others, reported in 1961(2) G.L.R. 564, and more particularly, referred to and relied on para 3 thereof. 9. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar further submitted that though the petitioners have filed the applications to lead the evidence from time to time, no orders have been passed by the respondent No.1 and therefore the petitioners have, from time to time, submitted the applications for leading evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have tried to delay the inquiry conducted under Section 19 of the Trust Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have tried to delay the inquiry conducted under Section 19 of the Trust Act. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 has rejected the applications filed below Exh.144 to 147 only on the ground that the relief/s prayed for in the said applications are not clear and not on any other grounds, which are canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the present petition. It is also contended that the Charity Commissioner has also passed adinterim order in the application filed by the alleged executive members of the petitioner No.1 when they have filed application under Section 41A of the Trust Act and therefore once the Charity Commissioner has taken a view that petitioner No.1 is a Trust within the meaning of the Trust Act, petitioners would not get any relief in the appeal filed before the said authority under Section 70 of the Trust Act and therefore the said remedy cannot be termed as an alternative efficacious remedy, in the facts of the present case. It is lastly contended that if this Court is inclined to fix the time limit for conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, petitioners will cooperate with the respondent No.1. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore appearing for the concerned interested party has, at the outset, referred the separate compilation, which has been placed on record by the proposed respondents. Learned counsel has referred the Rojkam, copy of which is placed on record at page 340 of the compilation. From the said Rojkam, it is pointed out that one of the petitioners has submitted an application for leading evidence on 17.10.2020 vide Exh.32(1). The other objectors have also filed applications for leading evidence vide Exh.34 to 37. Once again, applications for leading evidence were submitted by the petitioners vide Exh.136 to 139. It is submitted that on one hand, petitioners are not filing any affidavit before the respondent No.1 and on the other hand, similar type of applications are filed with a view to delay the inquiry proceedings. It is also submitted that the petitioners have requested the respondent No.1 to give direction to learned Charity Commissioner for giving his deposition/evidence. It is submitted that on one hand, petitioners are not filing any affidavit before the respondent No.1 and on the other hand, similar type of applications are filed with a view to delay the inquiry proceedings. It is also submitted that the petitioners have requested the respondent No.1 to give direction to learned Charity Commissioner for giving his deposition/evidence. Therefore, the respondent No.1 has observed that the relief/s prayed for in the applications are not clear and same are confusing. It is, therefore, urged that no error is committed by the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 26.02.2021. 11. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S.Sanjanwala also supported the submissions canvased by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore. It is submitted that the petitioners have not filed any affidavit though they have filed application before the respondent no.1 from time to time. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has not been examined and therefore there is no question of cross-examination of the respondent No.2 herein. It is also contended that nature of inquiry contemplated under Section 19 is urgent in nature and therefore when the inquiry is pending since long and the petitioners are trying to delay the same, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order. Thus, no error is committed by the respondent No.1 while rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is revealed that the Charity Commissioner issued a show cause notice on 05.08.2019 calling upon the members of the petitioner No.1 society to show cause as to why the petitioner society should not be registered under the Trust Act pursuant to the said show cause notice. The members of governing body of the petitioner no.1 society gave consent to register the petitioner society under the Trust Act. However, it is alleged by the petitioners that the said consent was obtained deceptively. Thereafter, the Charity Commissioner passed an order on 30.01.2020 by which the members of the petitioner no.1 society have to move an application before the Deputy Charity Commissioner – respondent no.1 to register the petitioner society as a trust under the Trust Act. However, it is alleged by the petitioners that the said consent was obtained deceptively. Thereafter, the Charity Commissioner passed an order on 30.01.2020 by which the members of the petitioner no.1 society have to move an application before the Deputy Charity Commissioner – respondent no.1 to register the petitioner society as a trust under the Trust Act. Though the petitioners have challenged the said order by filing petition before this Court, the said order has not been stayed by this Court. 13. It further transpires that various litigations are filed and pending before the City Civil Court as well as this Court on different issues. It is the case of the petitioners that they have removed respondent No.2 Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel from the governing body of the petitioner No.1 society, in spite of that he filed an application on 27.07.2020 in the name and on behalf of the petitioner society for registering the petitioner society as a public trust under the Trust Act. Pursuant to the same, inquiry is already initiated by the respondent No.1 under Section 19 of the Trust Act, wherein the petitioners have raised objections. 14. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner No.1 society moved a withdrawal application before the respondent No.1 on 17.10.2020 and requested that it does not want to pursue the said application filed under Section 18 of the Trust Act. However, the respondent No.1 has decided to hear the said application along with the main matter. Petitioners have, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.15330 of 2020 challenging the said order of respondent No.1. It is not in dispute that though this Court issued notice, the order of respondent No.1 has not been stayed by this Court. 15. In the aforesaid facts of the case, from the Rojkam of Inquiry No.358 of 2020, which is placed on record by way of separate compilation by the learned counsel appearing for the interested parties, it is revealed that petitioners have, from time to time, submitted applications for leading evidence. One of such application was filed at Exh.32(1). Similar applications were also filed vide Exh.34 to 37. Thereafter, similar type of applications were also filed at Exh.136 to 139 on various dates of hearing. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not filed any affidavit before the respondent No.1. One of such application was filed at Exh.32(1). Similar applications were also filed vide Exh.34 to 37. Thereafter, similar type of applications were also filed at Exh.136 to 139 on various dates of hearing. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not filed any affidavit before the respondent No.1. It is also clear from the Rojkam that the concerned original applicant – present respondent no.2 filed list of documents vide Exh.51 and affidavits for giving consent for registration of the trust were produced vide Exh.52 to 57. Written submissions in support of the registration of the trust are produced vide Exh.59 to 131 and thereafter the applications were filed at Exh.136 to 139 for leading evidence. Once again, similar type of applications were filed on 26.02.2021 vide Exh. 144 to 147 by the petitioners for leading evidence. Thus, it appears that the petitioners are from time to time filing such applications and trying to delay the proceedings of Inquiry No.358 of 2020. 16. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that if the reliefs as prayed for in the applications filed by the petitioners for leading evidence are carefully examined, it is clear that petitioners have requested the respondent no.1 to direct the Charity Commissioner to give his deposition/evidence. Thus, it appears that the petitioners want the respondent No.1 – Deputy Charity Commissioner to give direction to his superior officer/Appellate Authority to give his deposition/evidence. Hence, it appears that the petitioners are trying to delay the proceedings by filing such type of applications before the respondent No.1. 17. Moreover, it is the specific case of the learned counsel appearing for the interested parties that Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel has not filed any affidavit nor he has given deposition before the respondent No.1 and therefore he cannot be summoned for crossexamination. Thus, the said relief as prayed for in the application is also misconceived. Further, it was also prayed that summons be issued to all concerned and interested parties who are either supporting the application filed by Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel or opposing the same to adjudicate the said application. Thus, the said relief as prayed for by the petitioners is also vague. 18. Further, it was also prayed that summons be issued to all concerned and interested parties who are either supporting the application filed by Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel or opposing the same to adjudicate the said application. Thus, the said relief as prayed for by the petitioners is also vague. 18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, if the impugned order is carefully seen, it is revealed that the respondent No.1 has specifically made observations that by way of filing such applications, the petitioners are trying to delay the proceedings of Inquiry No.358 of 2020 and the relief/s as prayed for by the petitioners are not clear. The respondent No.1 has, therefore, rejected the applications filed by the petitioners below Exh.143 to 147. 19. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have though challenged the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Charity Commissioner directing the members of the petitioner No.1 society to move an application before the respondent No.1 – Deputy Charity Commissioner to register the petitioner society as a trust, by filing a petition before this Court, this Court has not granted stay of the said order. Further, the petitioners have also filed Special Civil Application No.15330 of 2020 in which the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1 by which he has decided to place the withdrawal application filed by the petitioners for hearing along with the main application. The said petition is also pending before this Court, wherein this Court has not granted any relief in favour of the petitioners. 20. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Trust Act, which reads as under: “1 Inquiry for Registration. The said petition is also pending before this Court, wherein this Court has not granted any relief in favour of the petitioners. 20. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Trust Act, which reads as under: “1 Inquiry for Registration. On the receipt of an application under section 18, or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining[(i) whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust,] (ii) whether any property is the property of such trust, (iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject-matter of the trust is situate within his jurisdiction, (iv) the names and addresses of the trustees and manager of such trust, (v) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust, (vi) the origin, nature and object of such trust, (vii) the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust, and (viii) any other particulars as may be prescribed under subsection (5) of section 18. 20.1. Rules 7 and 11 of the Rules provide as under: “7. Manner of inquiries. Except as expressly provided in these rules inquires under the Act shall be held, as far as possible, [xxx] in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the trial of the suits under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882, where the Act is in force and elsewhere under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. In any inquiry a party may appear in person or by his recognised agent or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf: Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner so directs, be made by the party in person. xxx xxx xxx 11. Manner of recording evidence of witnesses. (1) At any inquiry or other proceeding under the Act as the examination of each witness proceeds the Officer holding the inquiry or proceeding shall make a memorandum in [Gujarati] of the substance of what each witness deposes and such memorandum shall be signed by the officer and shall form part of the record. Manner of recording evidence of witnesses. (1) At any inquiry or other proceeding under the Act as the examination of each witness proceeds the Officer holding the inquiry or proceeding shall make a memorandum in [Gujarati] of the substance of what each witness deposes and such memorandum shall be signed by the officer and shall form part of the record. (2) Where the Officer is unable to make a memorandum as required by sub-rule (1), he shall record the reason of his inability and shall cause the memorandum to be made in writing from his dedication.” 20.2. In the case of Kuberbhai Shivdas and others (supra), this Court has observed in para 3 as under: “3. The inquiry held by the Deputy or the Charity Commissioner under Section 19 is by no means an administrative or an executive inquiry The rules framed under the Act called the Bombay Public Trusts Rules 1951 provide an elaborate procedure. Rules 7 to 11 make provisions for the manner in which the inquires are to be held the certificate of registration the mode of serving summons sending of processes allowances to witnesses and the manner of recording the evidence of witnesses. It is therefore clear that the inquiry is a judicial inquiry and the Charily Commissioner and the officers subordinate to him have been conferred powers of a Civil Court including the powers to issue summons and compelling attendance of witnesses. It is also clear that the inquiry is not on by for the purposes of registration for such an inquiry would involve adjudication of questions such as whether a trust exists if so whether such a trust is a public trust whether the applicant is a trustee the mode of succession to that post and what is still more far reaching in importance whether a particular property belongs to such a public trust. The entries to be made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner are as I have said to be made on the basis of the findings arrived at by him in an inquiry held under Section 19. Though these findings and entries are made conclusive under Section 21(2) the Legislature has provided remedies where it is subsequently found that a change in such entries is necessary. Section 22 provides for such a change in the entries. Mr. Though these findings and entries are made conclusive under Section 21(2) the Legislature has provided remedies where it is subsequently found that a change in such entries is necessary. Section 22 provides for such a change in the entries. Mr. Vakil however contended that the plaintiffs would have no right under Section 22 to apply for a change in the entries on the ground of fraud or dishonesty of the 1st defendant. That no doubt is true because Section 22 confines itself to a change which has occurred after an entry is made under Section 21. It appears however that realising that there was a lacuna in the Act the Legislature amended the Act by Bombay Act No. LIX of 1954 and by Section 2 of that amendment Act inserted Section 22A in the Act. The new section provides that if at any time after the entries are made in the register under Section 21 or 22 it appears to the Deputy or the Assistant Charity Commissioner that any particular relating to any public trust which was not the subject matter of the inquiry under Section 19 or Subsection (3) of Section 22 as the case may be has remained to he enquired into he may make further inquiry in the prescribed manner record his findings and make entries in the register in accordance with the decision arrived at and the provisions of Sections 19 20 21 and 22 would apply to such inquiry with regard to the recording of the findings and the making of the entries in the register. But it was argued by Mr. Vakil that the expression any particular relating to any public trust which was not the subject matter of the inquiry under Section 19 or Section 22(3) would not mean the subject matter of the previous inquiry which has already been inquired into and therefore the plaintiffs would have no right even under Section 22A to approach the Assistant Charity Commissioner and point out to him that the entries made by him were the result of fraud played upon him by the 1st defendant. That contention in my view cannot be accepted. That contention in my view cannot be accepted. Though retaining the final and conclusive character of the findings and entries made under Sections 20 and 21 Sections 22 and 22A make provision for changes to be made where such changes appear to be necessary either as a result of a change having occurred subsequent to the date of the entries or as a result of some particular having been left out from consideration in the previous inquiry. It was pointed out by Mr. Vakil that Section 22A would not apply to a case like the present one the word particulars in Section 18(5) and those particulars having been already ascertained in the previous inquiry under Sections 19 and 20 they would not be allowed to be reagitated under Section 22A. Though the construction suggested Mr. Vakil is somewhat ingenious it is a construction too narrow and too artificial to be adopted and it is further more not consistent with the object of the Act. As stated in the preamble that object is to regulate and make better provision for the administration of the public trusts which would include having decisions relating to public trusts in an expeditious manner through the machinery provided by the Act the without having recourse to protracted litigations. It is also clear that in view of the wider definition of a public of a public and charitable trust in the Act the object of the Legislature was to have once for all registration of trusts where in all the necessary particulars regarding such trusts including the properties belonging to them would be included so as to restrict if not to prevent altogether scope for further litigation. It is therefore that the Legislature through fit to give finality and conclusiveness to the findings arrived at in an inquiry under Section 19 and entries made under Section 21. The word particular mentioned in Section 22A would mean any information or detail as to a trust which has not been considered in a previous inquiry under Section 19. It is therefore that the Legislature through fit to give finality and conclusiveness to the findings arrived at in an inquiry under Section 19 and entries made under Section 21. The word particular mentioned in Section 22A would mean any information or detail as to a trust which has not been considered in a previous inquiry under Section 19. Indeed it could not be the intention of the Legislature to lay down that even though information is furnished to the Assistant or the Deputy Charity Commissioner which was not before him at an earlier inquiry or which was suppressed by a trustee for example for the purpose of avoiding a property to be declared to be property belonging to a public trust it should not and cannot be inquired into. In my view the construction suggested by Mr. Vakil is not correct and cannot be accepted.” 21. This Court cannot dispute the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision. However, at this stage, it is required to be noted that the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.02.2021 by which applications filed by the petitioners for leading evidence vide Exh.143 to 147 have been rejected on the ground that petitioners are trying to delay the proceedings and till date no final order has been passed by the respondent No.1. Therefore, at this stage, it is not proper for the petitioners to contend that the respondent no.1 has not made or will not make any inquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid Rules. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that the petitioners have, till date, not filed any affidavit before the respondent No.1. Moreover, Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel has not been examined by the respondent No.1 and therefore the question of his crossexamination does not arise and the said relief as prayed for by the petitioners is misconceived. Further, the prayer as sought for by the petitioners in the said application that summons be issued to all concerned and interested parties, who are either supporting the application filed by Mr. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel or opposing the same, for adjudication of the said application, is also vague. The petitioners have also prayed in the said application that directions be issued to the Charity Commissioner to give his deposition/evidence, by the Deputy Charity Commissioner – Respondent No.1. Jayesh Bhogilal Patel or opposing the same, for adjudication of the said application, is also vague. The petitioners have also prayed in the said application that directions be issued to the Charity Commissioner to give his deposition/evidence, by the Deputy Charity Commissioner – Respondent No.1. Thus, looking to the prayers as sought for by the petitioners in the applications filed below Exh.143 to 147, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have filed the said applications with a view to delay the inquiry proceedings. Moreover, the said reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners are not clear and very vague. Thus, looking to the conduct of the petitioners before the respondent No.1, this Court is of the view that petitioners are not entitled to claim the relief/s as prayed for in the present petition. 22. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are ready and willing to file affidavits of examination-in-chief of the petitioners on or before 9th March, 2021. If such affidavits are filed, respondent No.1 – Deputy Charity Commissioner shall consider the same before passing the final order. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.