ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-state.

2. This petition is filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is challenging the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by which the Tribunal had quashed and set aside the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot, which was in exercise of powers under Section-36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the property of the Trust was occupied by certain tenants and Trust was not deriving any benefits of such property. Theretofore, deciding to sale of the property of the Trust made an application under Section-36 before the Joint Charity Commissioner. Joint Charity Commissioner by its order dated 19-06-2013 had granted permission under Section-36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and stipulated several conditions. Such order was challenged by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that grounds of challenge is existence of previous Agreement to Sale of Rupees Fifty Lakhs only of the same property and subsequent Agreement to Sale granted by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section-36 was only for Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners challenges the order of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on the grounds of locus as according to the petitioners even if the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are considering to be tenants, still they have no locus to challenge the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner.

6. Learned Advocate submitted that challenge made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was after delay of 286 days. Such delay was never explained by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 nor any reference is made accepting the explanation for delay in the impugned order. It is submitted that as per the order sanctioned by the Joint Charity Commissioner, procedure was undertaken including issuance of Public Notice. However, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 though aware of all the proceedings, having challenged the same within stipulated period.

7. It is lastly submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are merely busy body to obstruct ongoing translation of sale of the Trust property after receiving due sanction. He relies upon the decision of this Court in the cases of (1) Saurashtra Rachanatmak Samiti, Rajkot v/s. State of Gujarat, (2) Upendrabhai Shantilal Maniar v/s. Sheth Shri Morarjibhai Dhanjibhai Padiya Brahmmakshtriya Boarding Trust and Anr., and (3) Raghavjibhai Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. v/s. Amroli Anjuman Fund Thr. Trustee & Ors.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that application under Section-36 does not serve the interest of the Trust, as just power seeking sanction on the Agreement to sale. Sale-deed registered on 14th August, 2013. The very Trust had entered into Agreement to Sale with one Kamalgar Nirmalgar Gunsai on 17-08-2011. Learned Advocate has brought for perusal both these documents and submitted that the Sale-deed of 2013 is for consideration of Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only, whereas the Agreement to Sale which is prior point of time, consideration for the same land is to the tune of Rupees Fifty Lakhs only and for that advance amount of Rupees Five Lakhs only were paid to the Trustees.

9. It is submitted that when the property can fetch Rupees Fifty Lakhs only, the Sale-deed for Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only can never said to be interest of the Trust. Answering the contention of the petitioners about locus, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Cyrus Rustom Patel V/s. Charity Commissioner Maharashtra State & Ors., reported in 2018 (14) SCC 761 stating that when the action under Section-36 is under challenge, locus of tenants cannot be obstruction to such challenge. Meaning thereby, the tenant can challenge as his interest is involved.

10. Learned Advocate submitted that even today, the respondent Nos.3 and