appellant has not made out any case and the present appeal is liable to be rejected. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the contents of Section 22-A in paragraph No.2 of his judgment. The learned Single Judge has further observed that, from the facts which had came on record, it is difficult to believe that the appellant was not aware of the acceptance of the change report by the Assistant Charity Commissioner vide order passed on 13.02.1991. The learned single Judge has further elaborately discussed as to how the present appellant participated in three subsequent elections held after the amendment in question was brought into effect. It has also been observed that, all the change reports in respect of the three subsequent elections held have been duly approved by the Assistant Charity Commissioner after conducting due enquiry in that regard. The learned Single Judge has recorded a conclusion that it was difficult for him to accept the submissions of the appellant that for a period of 12 years, he was not aware of the acceptance of changes on the basis of alleged manipulated resolutions. The learned Single Judge has further elaborately discussed the further changes occasioned and the orders time to time passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner accepting the said changes and further having considered all these aspects, the learned Single Judge has reached to the conclusion that, no mistake was committed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in rejecting the application. The
