ORAL ORDER

1. This is a writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.AS/06 of 2017 wherein the writ-applicant has challenged the orders dated 24.8.2017, 11.10.2017 and 13.10.2017 seeking interim protection which came to be rejected by the respondent No.1.

The impugned order dated 8.1.2019 reads thus :-

“7. Hence, on considering all the circumstances, as discussed earlier also, it is not found just and proper to pass any Order regarding the applications dtd. 11/10/2017 and dtd. 13/10/2017 of the Applicant. Because as the Opponent no. 9 has paid a very big amount to the Trust for purchase of the property, then in such circumstances, we believe that he could not be deprived of from the benefit of the property. Because it is not found proper and justifiable to stop Opponent no. 9 from using or developing the property with an optimism that the Applicant will definitely succeed in his case of Appeal. Such is our opinion, hence below mentioned Order is passed.

ORDER Applications dtd. 24/08/2017, 11/10/2017 and 13/10/2017 of the Applicant praying to get Stay Order are hereby rejected.

No Order is passed regarding the cost of the Application.

Concern parties shall be informed about the Order.

Order is declared today in the Open Court.”

2. The brief facts germane for adjudication of the present writ-application are stated thus :-

2.1 The respondents No.3 and 4 preferred application being Application No.36/9/2012 before the respondent No.2 seeking permission for sale of the property belonging to the Trust under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) with regard to the land bearing Ward No.2, City Survey (Nondh) No.5 admeasuring 2628.28 Sq.Mtrs., situated at Rustampura, Ring Road, Surat, excluding the land on which holy Agiyari is situated. The said property has 17 tenants. The notice with regard to the same came to be published in the daily newspaper, namely, ‘Gujarat Mitra’ on

20.5.2016 bringing it to the notice of the general public.

2.2 The writ-applicant raised objection and sought for certain clarification with regard to the Trust property in question. The respondents No.3 and 4 responded to the objections raised by the writ-applicant. Considering the objections raised by the writ-applicant and reply filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 the respondent No.2 ordered to auction the property of Part-2 as mentioned in application under Section 36 with an upset price for such auction fixed at Rs.30 crores. The said notice inviting bids for proposed bidders came to be published on 25.4.2016 in the daily newspaper, namely, ‘Divya Bhaskar’, Surat edition on “as is where is basis”.

2.3 The said notice went unobjected during the entire sale proceeding under Section 36 of the Act. On 7.6.2016, objection application filed by Shri Nevil J. Vadia – respondent No.7 and Shri S. F. Nurani – respondent No.8 came to be rejected and attained finality. On 22.6.2016 objection application filed by Shri Yazdi Daaraabshaa Ichhaporiya – respondent No.6 herein came to be rejected which was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No.11160 of 2013 and the same came to be rejected. Letters Patent Appeal came to be filed challenging the said order being LPA No.121 of 2014 which also came to be rejected.

2.4 On 2.7.2016, the respondent No.2 held auction between the two highest bidders i.e. Marvella Infrastructure, who offered the bid for Rs.38 crores and Roongta Industrial Park, who bidded for Rs.31.32 cores. On 20.7.2016, Special Civil Application No.11991 of 2016 which was filed by Marvella Infrastructure which came to be rejected by an order dated 2.7.2016 and the said order attained finality. On 28.7.2016, Marvella Infrastructure did not offer the bid and Roongta Industrial Park being the highest bidder the bid came to be accepted in favour of Roongta Industrial Park i.e. the respondent No.10 herein.

2.5 On 31.8.2016, Roongta Industrial Pa