Back
Supreme Court of India
SWATANTER KUMAR & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Others
Versus
Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Others
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 30469 of 2009
Decided On : 11-12-2012
(b) Administration of Justice - Judicial Review - Material facts - Suppression - It is not for the litigant to decide which fact is material - It has to disclose all facts - Special Leave to Appeal liable to be rejected on this ground alone. (Paras 44, 46 and 49)
AIR 1963 SC 1558; (2010) 14 SCC 38 - Relied upon
(c) Constitution of India - Article 226 - High Court should not, normally, go beyond the relief pleaded- However it can mould the relief depending upon the facts of the case. (Para 52)
(d) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 36 - In view of the petitioners and the trustees colluding time and again and the Charity Commissioner having received bids even higher than that of respondent no. 1, High Court ordering consideration of all bids and decide the highest bidder - Keeping in view interests of the trust, impugned order not improper. (Para 52)
(1986) 3 SCC 391; 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 356; (2001) 5 SCC 305 - Relied upon
(e) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Precedent - Judgment of Coordinate Bench should not be deviated from - However, in changed circumstances so warranting, this can be done. (Para 58)
Facts of the case:
1. On 29th November, 1994 the trustees of the Shri Vyankatesh Mandir Trust at Panchavati, Nasik resolved to sell 9 (nine) acres of agricultural land belonging to the Trust in Survey No. 275 situated at Aurangabad Road, Panchavati, Nasik by calling tenders.
2. Petitioners bid being highest was accepted and agreement for sale was executed.
3. On 6th February 1998 the Joint Charity Commissioner Mumbai granted the sanction.
4. On 19th June 1998 the sanction granted by the JCC was partially modified and a condition imposed that the sale shall be executed within a period of one year from the date of the order that is 19th June 1998 which could not be adhered to.
5. On 30th June 2001 the trustees and the petitioners mutually agreed to extend the time for completing formalities for execution of the transaction and to incvrease the sale price. Consequently the trustees moved an application before the JCC on 13th September 2001 to extend the time for completing the transaction.
6. In January 2002 the trustees moved an application before the JCC for revised permission since the petitioners had not complied with the terms of the agreement. The trustees therefore planned to sell the Trust land as per the sanction but apparently to persons other than the petitioners.
7. Eventually, both the applications (for extension of time and for revised sanction) were heard by the JCC who passed an order on 2nd May 2003 rejecting them. This order was not challenged by any of the parties and it has attained finality.
8. The order dated 2nd May 2003 is alleged to have been suppressed by the petitioners in this petition.
Even after the order dated 2nd May 2003 the trustees and the petitioners continued to have discussions and eventually on 15th August 2004 they entered into a third agreement to extend the time for completing formalities for executing the transaction originally entered into between them and to increase the sale price.
9. Accordingly, the trustees once again moved an application on 20th July 2005 for extension of time.
By an order dated 24th July 2006 the JCC rejected the second application filed by the trustees for extension of time.
10. Pursuant to the rejection, the trustees issued a public notice on 19th February 2007 for sale of the Trust land in response whereof respondent No.1 gave the highest bid on 23rd February 2007.
11. On 26th February 2007 the petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order passed by the JCC rejecting the second application for extension of time. In this Writ Petition, respondent No.1 was not made a party by the petitioners nor did the trustees bring it to the notice of the High Court that respondent No.1 had given the highest bid for purchase of the Trust land.
12. Pursuant to a compromise agreed between the petitioner and the trustees the High Court passed order in terms of the compromise impleading petitioners and remanding the matter to the JCC.
13. Respondent No.1 moved an application before the JCC for impleadment which was rejected.
14. On challenge to this rejection the High Court passed the impugned order remanding the matter to JCC to consider all the bids and decide who should be the purchaser for the Trust land.
Finding of the Court:
Though the High Court can be said to have over-stepped its jurisdiction, the impugned order is not improper.
Result : SLP dismissed with cost.
Judgment :-
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The facts of this case are a little elaborate, spanning as they do more than a decade and a half. However, the issue raised is somewhat narrow and is, in a sense, limited to the question whether the High Court over-stepped its jurisdiction in issuing the directions that it did.
2. The issue before the High Court was whether respondent No.1 should be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner in an application filed by a trust for sanction to sell off some land belonging to it. The High Court obliquely decided the issue by directing the Charity Commissioner to go ahead with the advertised auction of the trust land in which respondent No. 1 was the highest bidder.
3. While upholding the decision of the High Court, we feel that it may have over-stepped in giving the direction that it did. But, we are of the opinion that the learned judges had no option but to mould the relief and give the direction that it did in the best interest of the trust, in keeping with the provisions of Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the direction of the High Court.
4. We are also of the opinion that the petitioners have suppressed a material fact from us and, therefore, special leave to appeal ought not to be granted to the petitioners.
Facts:
5. On 29th November, 1994 the trustees of the Shri Vyankatesh Mandir Trust at Panchavati, Nasik resolved to sell 9 (nine) acres of agricultural land belonging to the Trust in Survey No. 275 situated at Aurangabad Road, Panchavati, Nasik by calling tenders from the public at large. For convenience the land resolved to be sold is hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trust land’.
6. Pursuant to the resolution, the trustees issued a public notice in the newspaper “Rambhoomi” inviting offers for purchase of the Trust land. In response, they received four offers, the highest being that of the petitioners for Rs.2.5 lakhs per acre totaling Rs.22.5 lakhs.
7. The petitioners’ offer was accepted by the trustees and on 18th February 1995 they entered into an agreement for the sale/purchase of the Trust land for a total consideration of Rs.22.5 lakhs.
8. As required by Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short the Act) the trustees moved an application on 5th February 1996 before the Charity Commissioner for sanction to sell the Trust land in terms of the agreement dated 18th February 1995. Section 36 of the Act reads as follows:
“36. Alienation of immovable property of public trust :(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of trust –
(a) no sale, exchange or gift of any immovable property, and
(b) no lease for a period exceeding ten years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or a building, belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner. Sanction may be accorded subject to such condition as the Charity Commissioner may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest, benefit or protection of the trust;
(c) if the Charity Commissioner is satisfied that in the interest of any public trust any immovable property thereof should be disposed of, he may, on application, authorise any trustee to dispose of such property subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest or benefit or protection of the trust.
(2) The Charity Commissioner may revoke the sanction given under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) on the ground that such sanction was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation made to him or by concealing from the Charity Commissioner, facts material for the purpose of giving sanction; and direct the trustee to take such steps within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of revocation (or such further period not exceeding in the aggregate one year as the Charity Commissioner may from time to time
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
