The central legal point established is that the Charity Commissioner must determine whether the sale of the trust property is necessary and in the interest of the trust before granting permission under Sec. 36 of the Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This Petition assails the order dtd. 10/10/2022 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune in Application No.2 of 2021 directing publication of notices inviting bids for the sale of the property of Osho International Foundation Trust, registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (the Act of 1950). The said order came to be passed while hearing arguments on an application for intervention(Exhibit 133) submitted by the Petitioner herein.

3. Osho International Foundation, Respondent No.1 Trust has acquired several immovable properties and valuable articles. An Application being Application No.2 of 2021 was preferred by the Respondent No.1 seeking permission to sell a portion of the property known as 'Restmore' situated at CTS Nos.15 and 16, Koregaon, Pune (Trust Property) for a consideration of Rs.1,07,00,000.00, ascribing certain reasons, which according to Respondent No.1, necessiated the sale of the trust property. The Respondent No.1 claimed that it has entered into a MOU with a prospective purchaser who has agreed to purchase the trust property for an optimum consideration of Rs.1,07,00,000.00 and has paid a sum of Rs.50.00 Crores towards part consideration as and by way of interest free earnest amount.

4. The Petitioner claims to be a follower of Osho and is, thus, a person having interest in the affairs of the trust. The Petitioner asserts the incumbent trustees of the Respondent No.1 Trust have mal-administered the trust and have been unjustifiably alienating or otherwise disposing of the properties of the Trust. The Petitioner, thus, preferred an application praying, inter alia, a direction to the Respondent No.1 Trust to cancel the MOU dtd. 18/2/2022 executed by and between the Respondent No.1 and the prospective purchaser and refund the earnest money of Rs.50.00 Crores received from the prospective purchaser.

5. While hearing the said application filed by the Petitioner, by the impugned order the learned Joint Charity Commissioner directed that notices be published in the leading newspapers inviting fresh bids for the purchase of the trust property. The fact that the public notice inviting offers was published in the year 2020, while Covid-19 Pandemic was prevalent, it seems, weighed with the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to invite fresh bids.

6. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the Petitioner's grievance was not in respect of valuation of the trust property, but to the very sale of the trust property. The impugned order, according to the Petitioner, gives an impression that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has pre-determined the crucial issue of necessity of sale and the inquiry under Sec. 36 is confined to fetching highest price for the trust property.

7. I have heard Mr. Anturkar, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Patwardhan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 at some length. Perused the material on record.

8. Mr. Anturkar strenuously submitted that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has completely misconstrued the nature of the Petitioner's objection. The Petitioner has questioned the very decision of the trustees to sell the trust property. By inviting fresh bids, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, in a sense, side stepped the pivotal issue of necessity of sale. Mr. Anturkar further submitted that a fait accompli is presented by the Respondent No.1 by not only executing the MOU but also accepting a huge sum of Rs.50.00 Crores thereunder. In the face of such a document with an influential prospective purchaser, the exercise of inviting fresh bids would yield no result and has, in fact, not resulted in a single fresh bid. Therefore, according to Mr. Anturkar, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner must first be directed to decide the ques