JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Monal Chaglani learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi learned AGP for the State and Mr. Shrinil Shah learned advocate appears for the private respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners is to the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, by which, the application made by the private respondents under Section 51 of the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950, (for short ‘the Act’) has been granted, as a result of which the private respondents have been permitted to file a suit against the petitioners herein.

3. Facts in brief would indicate that it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is a trust registered under the Act of 1950 whereas the petitioner nos.2 to 6 are the trustees of the Trust. The respondent nos.2 to 5 filed an application before the Charity Commissioner on 05.10.2020 seeking permission to file a suit against the petitioners. It was the case of the private respondents that they are persons interested in the Trust inasmuch as they offer prayers at the Masjid run by the Trust. Reading the application would indicate that it was their case that certain educational institutions are run under the aegis of the Trust. For instance, one Atit Education Trust is manned by the trustees of the Trust. It is further their case that based on certain audit reports, there is maladministration in the trust and therefore, permission is required to file a suit for the reliefs under Section 50 of the Act. By the impugned order, permission is so granted.

4. Mr. Monal Chaglani learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner essentially on the ground that the ingredients of Section 51 of the Act are not satisfied. Reading Section 51 of the Act, Mr. Chaglani would submit that a suit has to be filed by a person having any interest in the public trust and evidently, on reading the application filed by the private respondents, what is apparent is that the only interest that they exhibit is of offering prayers in a Masjid. The Trust does not have a Masjid and therefore would indicate that the private respondents are not really interested in the Trust itself. They cannot therefore obviate the essential mechanism of checks and balances which the language of the Section envisages and be permitted to file the suit just alleging maladministration of the Trust.

5. Inviting the Court’s attention to the objects of the Trust, Mr. Chaglani would submit that reading the objects would indicate that the Trust essentially calls for an educational purpose and the averments in the application would indicate that it is the case of so called persons interested to show that they were connected with the education for the objectives of the Trust. Even the stand that they would offer prayers cannot be accepted inasmuch as the applicant nos.1 and 4 were residents of Ahmedabad whereas applicant nos.2 and 3 though were within the District: Junagadh, the distance between the place of their residence Nandarkhi was not that would make one accept the submission of the respondents of offering worship at the Masjid if there was any.

6. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi learned AGP would support the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. In her submission, while reading Section 51, she would submit that the order has been passed in consonance with the requirements so specified. It is only when the Charity Commissioner refuses the consent that the order has to state reasons for refusal that too in writing for an application being granted therefore no reasons need be assigned. In fact, according to the learned AGP, reasons cogent enough have been assigned by the author of the order which prima-facie would satisfy the authority that the applicants before it were the persons interested and would therefore befit permission to file a suit.

7. Mr. Shrinil Shah learned counsel appearing for the privat