2011 Supreme(Bom) 16

2011(2) ALL MR 767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. OKA, J.
M/s. Raj Darshan Ventures
Vs.
The Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.
Writ Petition No.4273 of 2010 WITH Writ Petition No.9440 of 2010
Decided on : 6th January, 2011.

Headnote:Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36-Trust property-Sale of-Application for-Property alienated as per condition in Resolution-Public notice issued in widely circulated Newspapers-Highest price offered by respondent 3-Order granting permission to sell passed after considering all relevant aspects-Order of sale warrants no interference-Upheld.-The Trustees received six offers including the offer of the Purchaser. Amongst the said offers, the Purchaser’s offer was the best offer. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order shows that in Paragraph 9, the Joint Charity Commissioner has observed that the structures on the trust property are 70 years old and maintenance cost is much more than the rental income received from the tenants/occupants. The Joint Charity Commissioner has observed that the Trustees adopted a transparent procedure by giving a public notice in leading newspapers like Indian Express (English) and Maharashtra Times (Marathi) which are having large circulation in the City of Mumbai. The offers were opened on 1st May, 2010 at 11.30 a.m. when the representatives of the offerers were present who were given an opportunity to enhance their respective offers. The Joint Charity Commissioner also considered the report of the Valuer to which a reference is already made. Thus, all relevant aspects have been considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Considering the fact that the cost of maintaining the property is more than the income derived from the property, the necessity is established notwithstanding the sound financial position of the Trust and income derived from alienation of the other property. The impugned order does not become bad only on the ground that the application made by the Trust was disposed of within few days.

       Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36-Trust property-Sale of-Permission to sell granted by Joint Charity Commissioner-Order granting permission to sell, sought to be revoked by petitioner-Petitioner objecting sale after 6 months of execution of conveyance-Meeting of tenants for proposed re-development of property attended by petitioners-Delay in filing writ petition not explained-Petition cannot be entertained.-In the affidavit in reply of the purchaser, it is stated that on 8th August, 2010, meeting of the tenants/occupants in the property was held at Sir Eally Kadoori High School Hall, Mazgaon, which was attended by 200 tenants/occupants. It is alleged that the proposed re-development was discussed in the said meeting and all the petitioners were present in the said meeting. Reliance is placed in the affidavit on meeting held on 2nd October, 2010 arranged by Shri Shree Kutchi Lohana Nivas Griha Mitra Mandal which was negotiating with the purchaser on behalf of the tenants/occupants. It is stated that in the said meeting apart from the Directors of the purchaser, the petitioners were also present. It is stated that all terms were agreed to in the said meeting. The fact that the petitioners were present in the said meetings has not been disputed in the rejoinder filed by Mr. Chetan Mohanlal Dawda on behalf of the petitioners. It is not disclosed in the petition that the petitioners attended the meetings for discussing the re-development of the property by the purchaser. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay in filing the petition. Hence, the petition at the instance of the said petitioners cannot be entertained.

       Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36-Trust property-Sale of-Permission to sell property to respondent 3 granted-Order granting permission challenged by petitioner willing to purchase property by offering highest price-Petitioner not offered any specific offer-Not deposited earnest money as required-No locus standi on part of petitioner to challenge order-Order rejecting petitioner’s application warrants no interference-Upheld.-The petitioner did not comply with the requirement of deposit of EMD. It is obvious that the condition of deposit of the said amount was incorporated to ensure that the bidder must show his bona fides. The said condition was imposed to ensure that only the bidders who are in sound financial condition should submit their offers. In the case of Sailesh Developers, 2007 (4) All MR 100 (FB). The Full Bench of the Court held that a party who directly comes before the Charity Commissioner and submits his offer after complying with the other requirements specified by the Charity Commissioner has a locus standi to challenge the final order passed in proceedings under Section 36 of the said Act. The petitioner never complied with requirement of deposit of a sum of Rupees Five Crores. In the 1st application made by the petitioner there is no specific offer made by the petitioner. In the letter dated 17th May, 2010 addressed to the Trust, there is an offer. But, the petitioner did not deposit the requisite amount. Moreover, the said letter appears to be submitted to the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner after the application under Section 36 was decided by passing the impugned order. The letter was not filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner in the proceedings, but was tendered in the office in the evening and was inwarded on the next day. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 5 Crores was not deposited with the offer. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria laid down by the Full Bench of the Court inasmuch as the petitioner did not submit any specific offer before the Joint Charity Commissioner before the final order was passed and failed to make compliance regarding condition relating to EMD. Thus, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order by invoking Writ jurisdiction of this Court.