The primary authority vested with the power to sanction the alienation of trust property must act in the entity's best interest. Appellate courts should not substitute their own judgment for the authority's considered decision unless it is proven that the findings are perverse, illegal, or suffer from serious procedural infirmity.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 36 (1)(3) of the Bombay (now Gujarat) Public Trust Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) seeking the following reliefs:-

(A) Be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 29th November 2001 to the extent only of remanding the matter back to the Charity Commissioner.

(B) Be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner being the highest bidder stands entitled to property in question of the trust and therefore YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased accordingly to direct the Respondent to execute the documents in favour of the petitioner and to hand over the vacant possession of the entire property by charging the entire amount from the petitioner quoted in the tender.

(C) during the pendency, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to restrain the respondent – authorities from changing the character of property in any manner whatsoever i.e. alienating it, disposing it, selling it, giving on lease etc and be pleased to direct that the accrued income from the property should be deposited with the Charity Commissioner regularly.

2. Brief facts of the present case are, in nutshell, that the respondent – Charity Commissioner had published an advertisement in the local daily newspaper “Sandesh” where the offer has been made for sale of property of Catholic Church to which the petitioner had made an application offering the price of Rs.7,53,313/- and sent a pay order for Rs.75,333/-. It is the case of the petitioner that there were only two offers i.e. one from the petitioner and other from respondent No.2 on the date of opening of the tender and then the petitioner was informed by the Charity Commissioner that opening of tender has been postponed to 07.01.2000. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the offer of respondent No.1 was not there, his offer was included, for which the petitioner has raised an objection for the same and Charity Commissioner assured to pass an order on objection of the petitioner. That the respondent – authority passed an order in favour of respondent No.1 but the same was not communicated to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner visited the office of the Charity Commissioner, but he was informed that no such orders came to be passed and then the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order regarding disposal of property. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was provided copy of order, which came to be passed wherein his objections have been incorporated and thereafter the petitioner had preferred Appeal No. 11 of 2000 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) and the Tribunal stayed the impugned order of the Charity Commissioner. Though the petitioner submitted the copy of order of the Tribunal to the Sub – Registrar, despite of that he had registered the property in question. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Sub – Registrar had given in writing to the petitioner that he was not concerned with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has been leased to quash and set aside the order of the Charity Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Charity Commissioner for inviting fresh offer under Section 36 of the Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the order was defective on the basis of appreciation of evidence that has been led and material which has been produced, therefore, it was not required to remand the matter back to the Charity Commissioner as petitioner was highest bidd