Bombay High Court
S. Radhakrishnan and V.M. Kanade, JJ.
Suburban Education Society and Anr.
vs
Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra State and Ors.
Appellants : Suburban Education Society and Anr. Respondents: Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra State and Ors.
Judgment Date: 29, November, 2003
V.M. Kanade, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and are seeking writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the Order dated 6th August, 2001 passed by the Charity commissioner refusing permission to sell the property owned by the Petitioner No. 1
-Trust to the third parties and for direction directing the 1st respondent to sanction the said application in respect of the said Plot Nos. 154 and 155 situated at Goregaon (West).
1. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are as follows :
.3. The petitioner No. 1 is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the petitioner No. 2 is the General Secretary-Trustee of the 1st petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the Charity Commissioner of the Maharashtra State. Respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 3 is the Ex-Vice
.President of the Parents Teachers Association of the Mount Mary High School. It is an admitted position that the 3rd respondent is an ex-parent and his children are no longer taking education in the said Institution.
2. 4. The 1st petitioners aim and object is to run the Educational Institution and to do all acts and things which are necessary for the promotion of the said object. It is stated in the petition that the total present strength of the student is about 850. The petitioners case is that the School was started in the year 1961 and the School has produced excellent results over a long period of time and on several occasions it has achieved 100% results at the SSC Examinations conducted by the Board. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners -Trust had earmarked various plans for the upliftment of the infrastructural set up of the existing School. The Trust had decided to make provisions for developing the infrastructural set up by constructing a multipurpose hall for extra activities and Moor games, as well as setting up of a mini garden for the purpose of installing various types of playing equipments and also to provide working computer laboratory for the students. Petitioners case is that in order to execute the said projects, they did not have requisite funds and, therefore, they had taken a decision to sell two plots which they had purchased in 1978 which were at the distance of about 3 kilometers from the school premises. Accordingly a Resolution was passed by the Managing Committee dated 14-6-1998. Two parties approached the petitioner and the petitioners - Trust executed Memorandum of Understanding with the said parties and certain advances were given to the petitioners. Thereafter, as per the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 applications bearing Nos. J/4/75-2001 and J/4/76-2001, both dated 25-7-2001 were made to the Charity Commissioner for seeking sanction under Section 36 (1)(a) of the said Act.
3. 5. After the said applications were filed, respondent No. 3 who claimed to be the Vice President of Parents - Teachers Association filed objections to the said applications. The petitioners and respondent No. 3 were heard by the Charity Commissioner and by Order dated 6-8-2001, both the applications preferred by the petitioners were dismissed with costs.
4. 6. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and are challenging the said Judgment and Order which is passed by the Charity Commissioner. This Court, by Order dated 22-1-2002 granted rule and directed that the matter be placed for final hearing on 4-2-2002. However, on the said date the matter was not finally heard and, thereafter, on 18-11-2003 this Court had directed that the matter be placed for final hearing on 29-11-2003.
5. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3.
.8. The learned Counsel appearing on be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.