IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16956 of 2024 ================================================================

SHRI VALLABHIY JANKALYAN TRUST THROUGH TRUSTEE BHARATKUMAR HARIBHAI DADHANIYA & ORS.

Versus JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, RAJKOT & ORS.

================================================================

Appearance:

DR. M. M. DADHANIA(13285) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 09/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a direction to quash and set aside the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot at Exh.32 in Application No.41/A/1/2024 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent nos.2 to 4 moved an application under Section 41A of the Act seeking a direction against the petitioners not to restrain the applicants as well as the people of Vaishnav community from entering upon the property of the Trust and keeping its doors open to allowing them to use the facilities. He submits that the petitioner herein contested the said application and submitted that the prayers prayed for by the respondent nos.2 to 4 were not part of the objectives incorporated in the original Trust deed and the prayers cannot be granted since there is no religious temple called ‘haveli’ for the Vaishnav devotees to be made available to them within the Trust premises. He submits that the learned Charity Commissioner also did not consider the fact that the said respondent nos.2 to 4 have not produced any evidence in support of their claim and have only made allegations against the Trustees. He submits that the learned Charity Commissioner has also exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing directions beyond the prayers prayed for. It is submitted that by the said prayers, the respondent nos.2 to 4 are claiming the possession of the entire Trust property for their own use. He submits that such directions could not have been passed under Section 41A of the Act and such rights can be claimed only under Section 50 of the said Act or by instituting civil proceedings in law. He further submits that the Trust deed and the objectives mentioned therein are being scrupulously followed. The learned Charity Commissioner could have only directed the petitioners to act in accordance with the objectives of the Trust. He submits that the directions so given by the impugned de hors order are the objectives of the Trust and cannot be implemented in furtherance of the objectives of the Trust. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Harshadray Dave appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner no.2 is a former trustee of the petitioner-Trust. He was a trustee for around 11 years and has given huge donations to the Trust in furtherance of its objectives. He submits that by the application under Section 41 of the Act, a direction was sought against the present trustees to act as per the scheme of the Trust. He submits that the petitioners are illegally stopping the beneficiaries of the Trust from entering into its premises and enjoying the fruits thereof. He submits that it was never the case of the respondent nos.2 to 4 that there was a religious temple in the premises of the Trust, but the present trustees are preventing the beneficiaries from performing their religious celebrations in the Trust premises. He submits that the directions so passed are just and proper as it directs the trustees to make available the premises of the Trust to the beneficiaries. He submits that directions so passed are in accordance with the Trust deed.

4. Heard learned counse