SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
A. V. NIRGUDE And V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
Vicky Dilip Mutha – Appellant
Versus
The Panjarapol Sanstha, A duly Registered Public Trust – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 6657 OF 2014
Decided on : 06-05-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. R. Mantri, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent/Sole.

The Charity Commissioner is expected to play a proactive role in deciding applications under Section 36, ensuring that the alienation of property is in the interest of the trust.

Headnote:

Public Trust - Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 36 - Rule 24 of Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a public trust, sought permission to sell agricultural land. The Joint Charity Commissioner ordered to call for fresh bids due to increase in property prices. The petitioner challenged the decision, claiming the orders were arbitrary and illegal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner were in line with the interest, benefit, and protection of the trust as required by Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. The Court found no perversity or illegality in the orders and dismissed the petition.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the Joint Charity Commissioner's decision to call for fresh bids and the interest of the trust in the sale of the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The Charity Commissioner is expected to play a proactive role in deciding applications under Section 36, ensuring that the alienation of property is in the interest of the trust. The delay in deciding the application cannot be grounds to overlook the benefit and interest of the trust in the alienation of the property.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to apply for the return of the demand draft. The Court discharged the rule in the above terms.

JUDGMENT :

V. L. ACHLIYA, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has claimed reliefs as follows :-

“B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and or direction and quash and set aside the order dt. 26.08.2011 passed below Exh.1, order dt. 27.06.2012 passed below Exh.12 and the order dt.04.03.2013 passed below Exh.24 and be further pleased to allow the said applications.

C. Issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ and or directin and call for the record and proceedings of application no.35/2011, under Section 36 of Bombay Public Trust Act, pending on the file of the Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, and on perusal of the same or otherwise quash and set aside the order dt. 24.06.2014 passed below Exh.-45, and be further pleased to open and finalise the tenders as per the notice dt. 30.04.2014 bearing outward no.1527 to 1532 – Exh.42 and be further pleased to direct holding of proper enquiry and taking appropriate action in accordance with the law against the trustees of the respondent no.1 and the valuer.”

3. Before appreciating the submissions advanced it is necessary to consider the brief facts leads to filing of present petition. The respondent is a public trust duly registered under the provision of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “said Act”). It owns an agricultural land bearing block no. 2985 at village Sonai, Tq. Newasa, District Ahmednagar admeasuring 7 Hector, 63 R. There exist cattle shed, electric water pump installed in the well situated in said land. In the meeting of Managing Committee of the trust held on 20.08.2004 and 19.02.2005 it was resolved to sale the land for the reasons set out in the resolution passed. Pursuant to the decision the bids were invited by issuing public notice in newspapers. Petitioners have participated in the process and offered the bid of Rs.1,11,99,999/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only). Since the bid of the petitioners was found to be highest the Managing Committee decided to accept the same subject to requisite permission under Section 36 of the said Act. The resolution to this effect was passed in the meeting of the Managing Committee of said trust held on 31.08.2009. Initially the petitioners have paid Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs) as earnest amount and later on paid Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to the respondent trust. On 13.05.2010, the respondent trust filed application under section 36 of the said Act before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune seeking permission to sale the said land in favour of petitioners. The application was registered as application no.35/2011. After hearing and perusing an application the Joint Charity Commissioner was pleased to pass an order to call fresh offers in the matter by taking note that offer/bid was invited in 2008 and during the intervening period the prices of the immovable property have increased. The petitioners moved an application to recall the order dated 26.08.2011. However, the Joint Charity Commissioner refused to entertain the request and decided to proceed with the order to call the fresh bids in the matter. Pursuant to the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner the notices were published in newspapers inviting tenders/bid in respect of said property. In all five bids were received in response to the notice published in the newspaper which includes the petitioners as one of the bidder. Petitioners submitted their bid alongwith demand draft of Rs.30 Lakhs as bid amount. The bids so invited were to be opened on 20.05.2014 in presence of the persons who have submitted their offers. However on that date the Joint Charity Commissioner was not available and therefore opening of tender was postponed to 24.06.2014. On 24.06.














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top