JUDGMENT:

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned order dated 29 January 2020 passed by respondent No.1. By the said order, respondent No.1 cancelled the earlier permission granted by the Office of the Joint Charity Commissioner on 24 May 2018. Respondent No.1 further directed respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are trustees of respondent No.3-Trust, to return to the petitioner entire amount of Rs.6,53,00,000/- paid in relation to the property along with yearly rent of Rs.30,000/-, if such amount had been paid. Respondent No.1 also directed the Trustees to take steps for bringing the property back in the records of the Trust and to make necessary entries regarding the same within 180 days from the date of the impugned order.

2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings, according to the petitioner, may briefly be stated. Respondent No.3-Trust had executed a lease deed concerning the property on 5 April 1917. Thereafter, an assignment deed relating to the same property came to be executed on 6 December 1932. According to the petitioner, the Trust later issued a notice dated 30 August 2016 stating that the lease and assignment rights in respect of the property stood terminated. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 27 April 2018 the Trust approached the Joint Charity Commissioner seeking permission to grant the property to the petitioner on lease for a period of 29 years. The proposal also contained a provision giving the petitioner a right to renew the lease from time to time and also a right to purchase reversionary rights relating to the property. After considering the proposal, the Joint Charity Commissioner granted permission on 24 May 2018. Thereafter, a lease deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner on 18 September 2018. Soon thereafter, by a letter dated 20 September 2018, the petitioner exercised the option available under the agreement for purchase of reversionary rights. As a result, a conveyance deed came to be executed by the Trust in favour of the petitioner transferring such rights.

3. The record further shows that thereafter the Trust submitted a Change Report seeking deletion of the property from the Trust Register and other trust records. The said Change Report was accepted by the competent authority on 12 October 2018. Subsequently, on 14 December 2018, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings before respondent No.1 under Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act seeking cancellation of the sanction granted by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 24 May 2018. The petitioner opposed the said proceedings by filing an Affidavit in Reply on 25 February 2019. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an Affidavit in Rejoinder on 18 March 2019. The petitioner then filed an Affidavit in Sur-Rejoinder on 20 August 2019 and placed additional material on record opposing the prayer seeking cancellation of the sanction.

4. By the impugned order dated 29 January 2020, respondent No.1 allowed the application for revocation and cancelled the sanction granted under the order dated 24 May 2018. The main reasons recorded by respondent No.1 were that the termination notice dated 30 June 2016 issued by the Trust to the earlier lessee, Shri Brijmohan Sharma, alleging breach of lease conditions, was not placed before the Joint Charity Commissioner at the time of obtaining sanction. Respondent No.1 further observed that the public advertisement inviting offers did not mention the proposed right of renewal of lease or the proposed right relating to purchase of reversionary rights and therefore persons interested in the process were not given complete information. It was also observed that the valuer was not supplied with all necessary particulars required for assessing the proper lease value or sale value of the property. Respondent No.1 additionally recorded a finding that the Trust had not shown any need for dealing with the