The Charity Commissioner must be satisfied of the genuine need for alienation and that it is in the interest of the trust. The Commissioner's jurisdiction extends to determining the necessity and legality of alienation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur by his order dated 11.11.2008, has rejected application No.04/2008, filed by the petitioner/trust, for grant of sanction under section 36 (1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") to alienate the property in question, on the ground that the petitioner/ trust has failed to establish the genuine need to sell the property. This is the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.5888/2009, filed by the petitioner/trust. By an order dated 23rd January 2009, the Joint Charity Commissioner has rejected the subsequent application No.13/2008, filed by the petitioner/trust, trying to make out a case that the need for alienation of the property is genuine. It has been rejected, on the ground that the second application for the same relief is not maintainable. Hence, this order is the subject matter of challenge in second Writ Petition No.6073/2009, filed by the petitioner/trust.

2. This Court had issued notice before admission on 8th September 2009 in Writ Petition No.5888/2009. In Writ Petition No.6073/2009, notice before admission was issued on 14th September 2009 and it was directed that both the matters shall be heard together. Shri. Vinit Naik, the learned counsel holding for Shri. Sachin Deshmukh and Shri. I.M. Khairadi appeared for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, whereas Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, the learned A.G.P. appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both the petitions and Shri. K.C. Sant, the learned counsel appeared for respondent No.4 in both the petitions. The learned counsels for the parties agreed that the matter can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Hence, on 30.6.2010, Rule was made returnable forthwith. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents waived the service of notice. By consent of parties, the matter was heard finally. After hearing was concluded, operative portion of the judgment was dictated as under :-

"For the reasons to follow, both writ petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs."

3. Now, I proceed to state the facts as under:-

The petitioner/trust owns the following properties, which were the subject matter of proceedings under section 36 (1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, given below:-

(1) Open plot No.09, Sector No.12, Panvel, admeasuring 2287.50 Sq. Mtrs.

(2) Open plot No.18/B, Sector No.13, Panvel, admesuring 1036.29 Sq. Mtrs.

(3) Plot No.13, Sector No.12, Panvel, admeasuring 4516.57 Sq. Mtrs. with construction thereon admeasuring 35,000 Sq. Fts. plus two storied building for hospital.

All the aforesaid properties, hereinafter referred to as "the property in question."

4. The petitioner/trust was running a public charitable hospital on the property in question, since 1991. The said hospital was closed down in the year 2004. The petitioner/trust filed an application dated 4.3.2008 in the prescribed form under section 36(1)(a)/(b) of the said Act, before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur for grant of sanction to alienate the property in question. The reasons for alienation, as were stated in the application, are reproduced below :-

"The trust was running a hospital for quite some time on the property. But due to low patient response and due to the better Commercial medical facilities available at the same area the Trust was not in a position to run the hospital due to non recovery of MINIMUM MAINTENANCE cost and it was just not possible for the Trust to run the hospital with such a poor turn out of the patients and hence the Trust had to discontinue its hospital services 3 years back ie. it was closed in the year 2004, by incurring losses. Presently, it is being abandoned without any activity and on the contrary the Trust is incurred losses for the maintenance of the hospital and the property and thus it is just and equitable to dispose of the property in the interest of the Trust. "

5. On 16.8.2008,