Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
MANISH PITALE, J.
M/s. Sai Builder and Developer – Appellant
Versus
Joint Charity Commissioner & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2825, 2516 of 2020
Decided on : 07-07-2022
Trust - Renovation of Temple - Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, Section 36(1)(a) - The court discussed the application of Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and emphasized the necessity for a transparent process in disposing of Trust property. The court found that the Trust did not complete the transaction before seeking permission from the Charity Commissioner, and therefore, the procedure adopted by the Trust was not defective. The court also highlighted that the Charity Commissioner's role is to verify the genuine need for selling Trust property and whether it is in the interest of the Trust and its beneficiaries. The court concluded that the application submitted by the Trust should have been allowed, and accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, quashing the impugned judgment and order.
Fact of the Case:
The Vitthal Rukhmai Deosthan Trust, Pipri (Meghe), Tah. & District Wardha, decided to renovate a dilapidated temple managed by the Trust. The Trust sought to sell a property to raise funds for the renovation. The Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed the Trust's application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, leading to the Trust and the highest bidder challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Trust's procedure in seeking permission from the Charity Commissioner was not defective, and the reasons stated in the impugned order were not sustainable. The court emphasized the Charity Commissioner's role in verifying the genuine need for selling Trust property and whether it is in the interest of the Trust and its beneficiaries. The court concluded that the application submitted by the Trust should have been allowed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Trust's application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, the transparency of the Trust's procedure in disposing of Trust property, and the Charity Commissioner's role in verifying the genuine need for selling Trust property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for a transparent process in disposing of Trust property and the Charity Commissioner's role in verifying the genuine need for selling Trust property and whether it is in the interest of the Trust and its beneficiaries.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, quashing the impugned judgment and order, and the application filed by the petitioner Trust under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.
2. A Trust and a highest bidder in a project for renovation of a temple managed by the Trust, are before this Court challenging order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, whereby an application filed by the Trust under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) was dismissed.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2516/2020 is the Trust called ‘Vitthal Rukhmai Deosthan Trust’, Pipri (Meghe), Tah. & District Wardha, which manages a temple about 56 years old. Since, the temple is in dilapidated condition, the said Trust decided to renovate the same. On 11.07.2014, the Executive Committee of the Trust held a meeting and passed a resolution for undertaking renovation of the temple and for obtaining estimate for the renovation/reconstruction plan. Thereupon, on 04.08.2014, the Executive Committee of the Trust unanimously resolved to sell property of the Trust located in Gat No.289/01, admeasuring 3.706 acres at Mouza Pipri (Meghe), Tah. & Dist. Wardha, in order to raise funds for undertaking the project of renovation of the temple. Pursuant thereto, on 18.09.2014, tenders were published in two newspapers i.e. “Jana Madhyam” and “Shramik Sangharsh”, circulated in Wardha.
4. There were four bidders who came forward in response to the said tender notices and in a meeting held on 27.09.2014, the Trust decided to accept the highest bid offered by M/s.Sai Builders and Developers i.e. the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2825/2020. As per the highest bid of the said petitioner-developer at Rs. 54,00,000/- per acre, the total consideration came to Rs. 2,00,15,000/-, out of which Rs.30,11,000/- was paid by the said petitioner to the Trust as earnest money and the transaction was made subject to permission to be granted by the respondent – Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 36(1)(a) of the said Act.
5. In this backdrop, on 21.10.2014, the Trust moved the said application. The Joint Charity Commissioner asked for a valuation report. Accordingly, the Trust submitted the valuation report dated 17.10.2017, issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Wardha, and as per the Ready Reckoner the value was shown as Rs.1,19,37,500/-. On 09.11.2017, the Joint Charity Commissioner passed an order directing the Trust to submit documents demonstrating that it was a Class-I occupant of the property in question and thereafter to issue fresh advertisements in two newspapers stating that it was a Class-I occupant of the said property. This was on the basis that when the tender notices were published by way of advertisement by the Trust, it was a Class – II occupant.
6. At this stage, the petitioner – developer in Writ Petition No.2825/2020, filed application for intervention before the Joint Charity Commissioner as it was an interested party in the said proceedings. The said application was allowed and thereafter, the petitioner – developer filed an application before the Joint Charity Commissioner, for recalling the order dated 09.11.2017. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 12.09.2018. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 09.11.2017 and 12.09.2018, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, the petitioner – developer filed Writ Petition No.2384/2019, before this Court. By order dated 11.12.2019, the said petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The Joint Charity Commissioner was directed to proceed to decide the application filed under Section 36(1)(a) of the said Act, within a period of three months from the date of the order.
7. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Charity Commissioner heard the petitioner - Trust as well as the petitioner – developer and by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2020, dismissed the application under the aforesaid provision. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have file
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for a transparent process in disposing of Trust property and the Charity Commissioner's role in verifying the genuine need for sellin....
The Charity Commissioner has the authority to invite fresh offers for the sale of trust property, but must provide adequate reasoning for such actions, particularly when a valid bidding process has a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for objective consideration of the trust's decision to sell property under section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, and....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Charity Commissioner must consider the interest, benefit, and protection of the trust when granting permission for property disposal, a....
The paramount consideration in permitting the alienation of trust property is the interest, benefit, and protection of the Trust, and the transparent utilization of the sale proceeds for the betterme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the respondent to justify and record satisfaction for high valuation based on comparable sale instances and material evidence w....
Trustees must ensure any alienation of trust property is justified by genuine necessity and conducted transparently, safeguarding the trust's interests.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
