The Charity Commissioner's role in sanctioning the sale of trust property is limited to considering the proposed sale and ensuring the welfare and interest of the trust. The Commissioner is not obligated to consider unsolicited offers or associate unsuccessful bidders with the inquiry.

Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUST - SALE OF PROPERTY - SANCTION BY CHARITY COMMISSIONER - PETITION BY UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDERS - LOCUS STANDI - PUBLIC INTEREST - DUTY OF CHARITY COMMISSIONER - CONSIDERATION OF OFFERS - ACCEPTANCE OF LOWER BID - FACTORS CONSIDERED - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, unsuccessful bidders for the purchase of a property owned by a public charitable trust, challenged the sanction granted by the Charity Commissioner for the sale of the property to another bidder. The petitioners contended that the Charity Commissioner failed to consider their offers, breached the principles of natural justice, and acted contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the impugned order as they had no legal right to purchase the property and the Charity Commissioner owed no legal duty to them. The Court further held that the Charity Commissioner was not obligated to consider the petitioners' offers or associate them with the inquiry, as his role was limited to sanctioning or refusing the proposed sale. The Court also found that the Charity Commissioner had considered relevant factors, including the market value of the property, the moral commitment of the trustees to the successful bidder, and the benefits to other charitable trusts and objects of general public utility, in granting the sanction.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the impugned order. 2. Whether the Charity Commissioner breached the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioners' offers and associate them with the inquiry. 3. Whether the Charity Commissioner acted contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act in accepting a lower bid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Locus Standi: The petitioners lacked locus standi as they had no legal right to purchase the property and the Charity Commissioner owed no legal duty to them. 2. Breach of Natural Justice: The Charity Commissioner was not obligated to consider the petitioners' offers or associate them with the inquiry, as his role was limited to sanctioning or refusing the proposed sale. 3. Legality of Sanction: The Charity Commissioner considered relevant factors, including the market value of the property, the moral commitment of the trustees to the successful bidder, and the benefits to other charitable trusts and objects of general public utility, in granting the sanction.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions with costs, holding that the petitioners lacked locus standi and that the Charity Commissioner had acted within his authority in granting the sanction.

JUDGMENT - To grant the relief’s sought is these petition would be to open the flood gates of litigation to all those who are disappointed in purchasing property proposed to be sold by a public charitable trust.

2. Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 in these petitions are the trustees of a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The trust owns inter alia, land situated at New Marine Lines, Bombay, which was 'in days gone by used as a cemetery for scotsmen dying in Bombay. On 13th December, 1972 the trustees entered in to an agreement to sell to the 2nd respondent the said land, admeasuring about 4000 sq. yds., at the rate of Rs. 65 per sq. ft. The agreement provided that the 2nd respondent would accept the title of the trustees and would not administer requisitions thereon. It provided also that the second respondent would pay all taxes and outgoings of the said land upon being put into possession and the costs and the stamp duty pertaining to the sale. On the same day, a supplemental agreement was entered into between the trustees and the 2nd respondent where-under the 2nd respondent undertook the obligation of removing at his cost the tomb· stones standing upon the said land and re-erecting them in one case at Wilson College, Bombay and in the remaining cases at the Sewree Cemetery, Bombay. The 2nd respondent agreed to make available to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for use for public benefit 3000 sq. ft. in the building to be erected by him on the said land free of cost and 9000 sq. ft. therein to the Nalanda Dance Academy, connected with the University of Bombay, free of charge. On 11th February 1973 the trustees applied to the Charity Commissioner (the first respondent) for sanction of the proposed sale under the provisions of section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. On 30th June 1973 the Charity Commissioner directed the trustees to advertise the said land for sale. The trustees did not do so. On their own initiative the Petitioners in the first petition made an offer for the said land on 15th October 1973 in the sum of Rs. 75 lakhs which they stated they would be willing to enhance the said offer was subject to the trustees making out a marketable title. The offer was sent to the Charity Commissioner with a copy to the trustees. On 24th December 1973 the Charity Commissioner called a meeting to consider the application for sanction whereat he invited the Petitioners in the first Petition to remain present. It is contended in the first Petition that a representative of these Petitioners was present at that meeting and raised their offer to Rs. 85 Lakhs. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the Charity Commissioner based upon the minutes of that meeting, it is denied that any representative of the first petitioner was present at that meeting. The trustees did not attend the meeting. On 31st December 1973 the Charity Commissioner wrote to the trustees asking them to comply with his directions to advertise the said land for sale. On 12th March 1974 the trustees wrote to the Charity Commissioner declining to advertise the said land for sale contending that this would be contrary to their religious tenets and that they had morally committed themselves to sell the said land to the 2nd respondent. Sometime in March 1974 the petitioners in the second petition wrote to the trustees offering to purchase the said land at the rate of KS. 115 per sq. ft. provided that the trustees had a marketable title thereto. On 21st March 1974 the Charity Commissioner wrote to the trustees declining to sanction the proposed sale. On 22nd March 1974 a meeting was held before the' Charity Commissioner at which the trustees and the 2nd respondent were present. The trustees having declined to ask the 2nd respondent to increase his offer for the sale of the property, the 2nd respondent volunteered to purchase the said land at the rate of Rs. 92 per sq. ft. He assured the Charity Commissioner that he w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document