does he then expect the appellants to appear before the Charity Commissioner and contest the application ?. In fact, as pointed, the application was decided within a week's time and with great haste, leaving no scope for the appellants to participate. In fact, the respondent - Uttarwar should have fairly asked the Charity Commissioner, to issue notice to the present appellants and the public since the present appellants also have been fighting with him in the court of law since 1998. Even the Charity Commissioner knows that there are two factions. Inspite of this he chooses not to issue notice to any other party. If any enquiry has to be held, it would be incumbent to hear both the factions. Inspite of the knowledge, as stated earlier, the Charity Commissioner failed to issue any notice to the appellants or to the public in general. Such a notice could have been displayed in the temple itself. Had the Charity Commissioner given a notice or displayed it in the temple, a wider choice would have been available to him for selection of trustees and the information about all others which may have and could have been suppressed. The result of not issuing notice is that all others are deprived of being considered for the appointment as trustees. The Charity Commissioner was not bound to consider the names as mentioned in the application alone. If this kind of procedure is followed, then perhaps the Charity Commissioner will be left with no choice but to appoint only those whose names are to be found in the application. This certainly is not contemplated.
