A person having no interest in a trust cannot question the correctness or legality of an order passed under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUST - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950 - SECTION 36 - SALE OF TRUST PROPERTY - SANCTION OF CHARITY COMMISSIONER - PETITIONER, A BUILDER, CHALLENGING THE SANCTION GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO. 3 FOR THE SALE OF TRUST PROPERTY - HELD, PETITIONER HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO CHALLENGE THE SANCTION AS HE IS NOT A PERSON HAVING INTEREST IN THE TRUST.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a builder, challenged the sanction granted by the Charity Commissioner under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, for the sale of trust property to respondent No. 3. The petitioner claimed that he had offered a higher price for the property and that the trustees had acted improperly in accepting the offer of respondent No. 3.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the sanction granted by the Charity Commissioner as he was not a person having interest in the trust. The court further held that the proceedings under section 36 of the Act were not a lis between the parties to adjudicate the contesting claim, but rather a proceeding to ascertain whether the trustees acted in the best interest of the trust.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the sanction granted by the Charity Commissioner under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950? 2. Whether the proceedings under section 36 of the Act were a lis between the parties to adjudicate the contesting claim?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person having no interest in a trust cannot question the correctness or legality of an order passed under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 2. Proceedings under section 36 of the Act are not a lis between the parties to adjudicate the contesting claim, but rather a proceeding to ascertain whether the trustees acted in the best interest of the trust.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to respondent No. 1-Trust.

JUDGMENT - DESAI A.A., J.:---The petitioner a builder by business, has questioned the correctness of order dated 17-8-1990 passed by the second respondent, Joint Charity Commissioner, in exercise of power under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter called as "the Act")

2. The respondent No. 1 Alliance Ministries is a registered Public Trust under the Act. The respondent Trust amongst others held properties in question at Kodalikanal (Tamilnadu). The trust decided to dispose of the properties in question by sale, and by publication invited the offer. The petitioner respondent No. 3 amongst others submitted their offer. Correspondence was exchanged between the parties. The petitioner offered Rs. 28 lacs as a purchase price; whereas the respondent No. 3 offered Rs. 291 lacs. The respondent trust accepted the offer of respondent No. 3.

The respondent Trust, therefore, on 15-10-1987 applied to the respondent Charity Commissioner for grant of permission to sell in pursuance of section 36 of the Act. The petitioner on 18-6-1988 filed his objection to the sale in favour of respondent No. 3. According to him, the sale was not in best interest of the Trust. The respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 17-8-1990 rejected the objection of the petitioner and granted sanction for the sale in favour of the respondent No. 3.

Correctness thereof has been questioned in this petition styled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petition was heard by the Single Judge from time to time. On 13-11-1990 the learned Single Judge issued a rule returnable on 10-12-1990 and granted interim stay as prayed by the petitioner. Thereafter, matter was listed before me for final hearing.

I heard the matter for quite some time. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the question that this matter is to be heard and decided by a Division Bench. According to him, Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, does not include the writ petitions questioning the order passed under the Act to be dealt and decided by the Single Judge. I thereupon referred the matter to the registry. It is certified on 12-4-1991 that the order impugned in the instant writ petition being one in the proceedings under the Local Act, as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 18, the matter can be heard by Single Judge.

Submission of Shri Deshpande is that by amendment to Rule 18 various local Acts have been incorporated. However, the amendment omits the Act for inclusion. As such, the order passed under the Act cannot be covered by a general entry of "local Act" as envisaged under sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 which was existing even prior to the amendment.

True, there is no specific inclusion of the Act. However, according to me inclusion of various Acts does not curtail the scope and ambit of the term "local Act" as referred to under sub-rule (3) of Rule 18.

Shri Deshpande then made a submission that sub-rule (3) refers to decrees or order passed by any subordinate Court in any suit or proceedings. According to Shri Deshpande, the Charity Commissioner is neither a Court nor subordinate to the High Court in hierarchy. According to him, it is an authority as defined under sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Act. Section 3 provides for the appointment of the Charity Commissioner. Chapters V and VI of the Act deal with the power of the Charity Commissioner. Section 50 authorised the Charity Commissioner to file a suit in the Court. As per section 26 decision in the civil suit is binding on the Charity Commissioner. As per section 72, orders of the Charity Commissioner can be questioned by presenting application before the District Court. Sub-section (4) of section 2 defines the Court which means "District Court". The office of the Charity Commissioner thus possessed all characters of the authority.

It is further submitted that Rule 18(3) refers to suit or proceedings which leads to passing of decree. As such, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document