Trustees must ensure any alienation of trust property is justified by genuine necessity and conducted transparently, safeguarding the trust's interests.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court assailing the legality and propriety of the order dated 8th July 2024 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner-2, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, in Application No.51 of 2024. By the said order, respondent No.2-Trust has been granted permission to alienate and dispose of the properties delineated in the application.

2. The factual matrix leading to the institution of the present writ petition unfolds as follows:

3. Respondent No.2-Trust, a charitable entity, stands registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1950") pursuant to a Trust Deed dated 21st January 1958, with its registration completed in the year 1961. The primary objectives of respondent No.2-Trust encompass the impartation of education, the provision of medical health facilities, and engagement in religious and social welfare activities. Over the years, respondent No.2-Trust has acquired various parcels of land, including substantial holdings in Thane, more particularly in the village of Vadavli in Owale.

4. On 8th July 2024, respondent Nos.2 to 7 jointly preferred Application No.51 of 2024 under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act, 1950, seeking the sanction of respondent No.1 for the sale of the properties as specified in paragraph 6 of the said application. The apparent rationale furnished in justification of the proposed alienation was that the subject properties were situated in a hilly and marshy terrain, characterized by their uneven topography, rendering them largely inaccessible and unsuitable for productive use in furtherance of the objectives of the Trust.

5. Upon due consideration of the application, respondent No.1, vide the impugned order, accorded permission for the sale of the said properties in favour of respondent No.8 for a total consideration of Rs.75,05,00,000/-, stipulating that the transaction should be consummated within a period of six months from the date of the order. Additionally, the Joint Charity Commissioner-2, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, while granting such permission, imposed certain regulatory conditions governing the sale, inter alia, mandating that the expenses pertaining to the execution of the sale deed, such as stamp duty and registration charges, shall be borne by respondent No.8. The proceeds derived from the sale were directed to be deposited in a fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank for a long-term duration, to be utilized exclusively for achieving the objects of the Trust. Furthermore, the order categorically restrained the utilization of the fixed deposit without prior approval from the Charity Commissioner and proscribed the creation of any encumbrance, including the procurement of loans, against the said deposit.

6. Aggrieved by the said order and contending that the permission granted for the alienation of Trust properties is in derogation of the principles governing the administration of charitable trusts, the petitioner, claiming status as a former trustee, has instituted the present writ petition, seeking judicial intervention to annul the impugned order and to forestall any irreversible consequences that may ensue from its implementation. 7. Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that respondent No.1 failed to undertake an objective and comprehensive adjudication of the market valuation of the properties in question. Drawing the attention of this Court to the valuation certificate issued by Span Arch dated 22nd May 2024, he submitted that the valuation erroneously accounted for the total saleable area as 94,860 square metres, whereas the aggregate area of the property stood at 1,78,140 square metres. The extent of land affected by reservation under CRZ-II from Survey Nos. 83 to 87 had not been precisely delineated. The valuer’s report, according to lea