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

2000 Supreme(Guj) 619

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.C.PATEL, P.B.MAJMUDAR
MANUBHAI B.DESAI - Appellant
Versus
CHARITY COMMISSIONER,ahmedabad - Respondent
S.C.A.6418 of 1999
Decided On : 08/08/2000

Advocates Appeared: D.N.Patel, M.G.DOSHIT, SUNIL SHAH, T.S.NANAVATI

Headnote:

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1959 - Section 36 (3) - Public Interest Litigation - Petitioners, three in number, without disclosing as to how the public at large would be adversely affected by a decision rendered by the Gujarat revenue Tribunal in Appeal confirming the decision rendered by the Charity Commissioner, under Sec. 36 (3) of the Act, has filed this petition, styling it as a PIL - Held, It would also be not out of place to assess the interest of the petitioners in this Public interest Litigation. It is the say of the petitioners in paragraph 1 of the petition that the issue involved in this petition affect the people at large more particularly the large number of poor and lower middle class visitors to the City who utilise the services of the dharmashala at the most down to earth rates. There is also a similar mention in paragraph 2. 1 of me petition - However, in the whole petition, absolutely no details are given about the number of persons who utilised the services of the dharmashala in the past few years - Absolutely no details are placed about the number or estimated number of passengers who are in need of such services. There is not a whisper about the inconveniences likely to be caused to the visitors if the property is not made available to the visitors - The whole thrust of the petition is disposing of the property at lower rates to builders/developers by forming internal cartel as against higher rates offered by other parties - Therefore, the interest in this public Interest Litigation is not the conveniences or otherwise of the visitors to the City if this property is not available for the visitors, but the interest seems to be delaying the proceedings and somehow retaining possession of the property by the present occupiers - Such a petition, in the garb of Public Interest litigation with hidden motive cannot be, and must not be, entertained by this court - Petition is dismissed. (Para 21)

B. C. PATEL, J.

( 1 ) ). LEARNED Advocates appearing in this matter were given extensive audience as if the matter was being heard finally. By this judgment, we are treating the matter as if it is heard and disposed of finally.

( 2 ) ). The petitioners, three in number, without disclosing as to how the public at large would be adversely affected by a decision rendered by the Gujarat revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN/aa/48/96 dated 24th June, 1999 confirming the decision rendered by the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad under Sec. 36 (3) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bearing No. 36/23/94, has filed this petition, styling it as a Public Interest Litigation.

( 3 ) ). The Maganbhai Karamchand Station Dharmashala Trust, a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Trust), is in possession of an immovable property which is used partly as Dharmashala, situated opposite Ahmedabad Railway Station bearing Survey No. 666 to 672 of Railwaypura Ward on a piece of land admeasuring 1480 sq. yds. and also an area of approximately 482 sq. yards exclusive of the super structure which has been rented to tenants. Part of the property is covered under the roadline laid by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in accordance with the T. P. Scheme. From the sketch which is produced on record, it appears that there are nine small rooms which are offered to the passengers/visitors to the City. The entrance of the Dharmashala abuts to the main road which leads from sarangpur to Kalpur Darwaja. From, the sketch it appears that there is a big chowk/open space, admeasuring 70 ft. 6 inches X 73 ft. 9 inches, having some construction in one comer. Just opposite the entrance there are rooms which are offered to visitors coming to the City. On all the four sides of the chowk there are verandahs (balconies ). Before entering the building there is a covered otta, and thereafter, a wide verandah. There are two shops just near the entrance gate behind which there is a small verandah connecting the verandah inside the chowk. There are other six shops also in the premises. The property has a ground floor and first floor. In all there are ten tenants, out of which one A. K. N. Satiya is occupying two survey numbers on the ground floor as well the first floor. The total rent of all the shops per month comes to Rs. 412-50 and rent per annum comes to Rs. 4950-00. The description of the property is given at Annexure IV which is a valuation report. Reading the report, it appears that it is a very old property. There are sundry shops, offices, etc. The frontage of the property is on the main road and that too opposite main Railway Station. It is completely blocked by tenants. There is a hair cutting saloon, a person providing typing services, a restaurant and shops dealing in kerosene. The first floor structure is in occupation of the tenants. The tenants are using the bathrooms and toilet provided in the rear portion of the property since years. The roadline which is to be implemented could not be implemented in view of one or the other hurdle created by the tenants by filing litigations. The road could not be widened. Non-widening of the road causes lot of inconvenience to the people. One Trustee of the said Trust, has filed an affidavit pointing out the details with relevant documents.

( 4 ) ). So far as the petitioners are concerned, they have come out with the case that on behalf of the Trust, an application was made under Sec. 36 of the Act read with Rule 24 of the Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1961 for permission and sanction for alienating the immovable property. One Panchlok Appts. Owners association signed Memorandum of Agreement on 24th November, 1993 and was willing to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,55,555/- in consideration of the property. Advertisement was given in the local daily newspapers inviting offers with minimum price of Rs. 1,10,00,000/ -. The petitioners have averred that they rel























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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