IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Charity Commissioner's decision to grant consent for instituting the civil suit was based on subjective satisfaction and fulfilled all procedural requirements.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 8.8.2023 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad in Application No.51/1/2023 whereby the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad has granted consent to the respondent Nos.2 to 9 who are the original applicants before the Joint Charity Commissioner, to institute a civil suit under Section 50 read with Rule 27 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and Rules framed thereunder.

2. The matter was heard at length on 10.10.2023 and this Court had passed the following order :-

"Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Mrugen K. Purohit appearing for the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash K. Jani with learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 9, learned advocate Mr. Aakash Patel appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dhwani Tripathi appearing for the respondent No.1 – Joint Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad.

At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Aakash Patel and learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel submitted that they may be permitted to file their Vakilatnama in the registry for the respective respondents. Permission as prayed for is granted. Registry is directed to accept the Vakilatnama of learned advocate Mr. Aakash Patel and learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel appearing for the respective respondents. Matter was heard at length. Arguments are concluded. Reserved for Orders."

3. Thereafter, the petitioner and private respondents had given their written submissions along with the decisions relied upon by them and those written submissions are on record and the contents of the written submissions are considered while considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

4. Hence, Rule. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash K. Jani with learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel waives service of rule for respondents Nos.3 to 9, learned advocate Mr. Aakash Patel waives service of rule for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dhwani Tripathi waives service of rule for respondent No.1 – Joint Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad.

5. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are as under :-

5.1 The dispute pertains to Pir Imamsha Bava Dargah or Roza Pirana in the south Daskroi Taluka, Ahmedabad District was founded before 600 years ago by Imam Bava, whose followers are saiyed and satsangi and his tomb (dargah or roza) is held a great venerations by his followers and worship by saiyed and satsangi of the sect.

5.2 The saiyed community is considered to be direct descendants of Imamsha and according to the petitioner, due to that reason, in every scheme, their rights are recognized. Before the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 came into force, in the year 1931, a Civil Suit No.168 of 1931 was instituted under Section 92 of the CPC for the purpose of settlement and framing of the scheme. The scheme for the purpose of administration and management was framed by the first class subordinate Judge in the aforesaid suit vide order dated 26.9.1939.

5.3 According to the petitioners, there were very important Clauses in the Original Scheme, namely, Clause Nos.3, 6 and 7 as according to the petitioners, those were Clauses of the Scheme recognizes rights of Saiyeds.

5.4 In the year 1968, a Civil Suit No.47 of 1968 was filed before the District Court, Ahmedabad Rural for modification of the scheme and prayed to enhance the tenure of the committee from 3 years to 5 years. The aforesaid application was allowed vide order dated 17.12.1969. Thereafter in the year 1973, Trust Suit No.1 of 1973 was filed by Jasvantbhai Chhaganlal and others for increasing the amount which is to be paid to the saiyed under the scheme and the said suit was disposed of. In the year 1999, First Appeal No.6353 of 1999 was filed before this Court. Those facts, though are not relevant for the purpose of the present petition, bu