is required to be applied to the income derived by the Respondent Trust. He would submit that in that view of the matter, the Applications below Exh.8 and 12 are also required to be governed likewise as there is no change in position of facts at all. Rather, he would state that the issue covered under Exhs. 8 and 12 are on a much lesser footing than the issue under Exh. 19. All that he would submit on reading the provisions of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and more specifically sub-section (3) thereof, is that there is every possibility that application of doctrine of cypres to any other charitable or religious object may be invoked and therefore in that view of the matter, Petitioner desires to be heard in the event if the learned Charity Commissioner desires to alter any claim which is already settled in terms of the orders passed by this Court. It is seen that all that the Petitioner is at present asking is for it to be heard in the matter and in that view of the matter, I cannot take a different view than what has already been expressed by this Court in the order dated 26.07.2023, which in my opinion covers the present Writ Petition also. Considering the object of the Applications filed below Exhs, 8, 12 and 19 and this Court having passed the order below Exh. 19, the same order dated 26.07.2023 stands applicable also in so far as the Intervention Applications below Exh. 8 and 12 are concerned, resultantly leading to setting aside of the order dated 27.06.2019.
