2026:BHC-AS:2616 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Swapnil CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5810 OF 2016 Utkarsha Samiti Nashik Vibhag. …Petitioner Vs.

The Jt. Charity Commissioner And Anr. …Respondents Mr. Shubham S. a/w. Mr. B. Nittekar for the petitioner.

Ms. Savina R. Crast, Learned AGP for the respondent/State.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE : 16^th JANUARY 2026

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed on behalf of the Public Charitable Trust to challenge the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 3^rd November 2009 rejecting the application for permission to sell the property owned by the trust.

2. The Joint Charity Commissioner has observed that the original trustees who had purchased the property in the year 1965 has entrusted trust properties and its management to all the trustees. Accordingly, the beneficiaries would be entitled to their collective wisdom and experience and hence, in the absence of an appropriate consent of all the trustees on record, the Joint Charity Commissioner refused to grant permission for sale. The valuation report and the market value are also one of the considerations for refusing the permission to sell. Even in this petition the authority on behalf of all the trustees or a resolution recording consent by all the trustees is not on record confirming the decision to sell the trust property.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the resolution passed by the trustees was part of the application filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner. He therefore, submits that with the consent of all the trustees the application was filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner. He therefore, submits that there was no reason for the Joint Charity Commissioner to refuse the permission under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act.

4. I have perused the application filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The application is on the letterhead of the trust with a list of enclosed documents. None of the documents shown in the application refers to the resolution or consent of all the trustees. There is nothing on record to indicate that all the trustees had consented to the sale of trust properties. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

5. This is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order.

6. The writ petition is therefore, rejected.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]