Point of Law: Mere assertion that it would be open for the petitioners to approach the District Collector as well as the competent authority under the Bombay Public Trust Act would not give licence to the petitioners to retain the possession and it appears that the petitioners have remained dormant except making representations

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) This Honourable Court be pleased to admit this petition.

(B) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents directing them to comply with the order passed by this Hon’ble Court while disposing Special Civil Application No. 15389 of 2014 dated 14.11.2016 pursuant to the application dated 14.06.2021 which has been made by the petitioners to the Collector, as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court and further direct the Collector, Navsari to approach the Charity Commissioner by making an application and pray for simplifying the process of allotment of shops constructed by the Unai Mataji Trust, instead of conducting auction for the shops every three years, which would meet the ends of justice.

(C) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the notice dated 05.06.2021 issued by the Chairman of the Respondent No. 4 Trust as it contains false assertions and is in direct conflict and contravention of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 15389 of 2014.

(D) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay implementation and execution of the notice dated 05.06.2021 issued by the Chairman of the Respondent No. 4 Trust and be pleased to further restrain the Trust and its Chairman who is also the Deputy Collector, Vansda Prant from dispossessing the petitioners from the shops constructed by the respondent no. 4 trust.

(E) For ad-interim relief in terms of prayer D.

(F) For such other and further reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(G) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(H) Be pleased to award cost of this petition from the respondents.”

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the occupiers of the shops allotted to them pursuant to the auction held by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent No. 4 Trust had resolved to renovate the temple of Shri Unai Mataji and for that purpose, the respondent No. 1 granted permission on certain terms vide letter dated 24.07.2001. It was suggested to construct a Shopping Center and Dharamsala so as to derive the regular income of the Trust. Pursuant to the above permission having been granted, the respondent Trust constructed a shopping center in the year 2003 and upon certain terms and conditions after following the procedure, some 19 persons were short-listed including the petitioners and the grievance is that though the shops were to be allotted on long term term basis, came to be allotted only for three years. The petitioners, pursuant to the said process of allotment, deposited the amount as per the requirement and allotment came to be made in favour of the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The order in that respect is of 29.03.2004.

2.1 The petitioners have asserted in the petition that after completion of three years’ period, the respondents continued to allot the shops to the highest bidders by increasing the amount of rent and it is the case of the petitioners that in the year 2008 once again, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 followed the very same procedure and auctioned the shops and the petitioners having participated were leased out the shops for a further period of three years. An order dated 09.05.2008 is an approving order on auction and allotment in favour of the petitioners. It is the further case of the petitioners that after lapse of three years, further in the year 2011, the respondents again conducted the auction procedure with the increased of amount of rent in which the petitioners came to be allotted since they were the highest bidders.

2.2 By raising a grievance, a representation was made by the petitio