THAKOREBHAI GANGARAM Vs. RAMANLAL MAGANLAL RESHAMWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) There is public trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1949 and it is named as Shri Surat District Limbachia Valand Hitechchhu Mandal, Surat. The said Trust owns and is possessed of properties bearing Nodh Nos. 3926, 3927, 3928 in Ward No. 7 at Surat. Respondent No. 2, the trustee of the said trust issued an advertisement, dated 8.7.1978 inviting offers in sealed cover to dispose of said properties. It appears that the wife of the present petitioner submitted her offer to purchase said properties for Rs. 65,000/- which offer was subsequently raised to Rs. 1,05,999/-. The said offer submitted by the wife of the petitioner was notified by public advertisement dated 1.12.78 In the said advertisement it was stated that the trust has also moved the Charity Commissioner for his prior sanction for sale of said properties and that if any one had objection to the said transaction, he was invited to submit objections within 8 days, persons interested to bid higher offer were also invited to submit their tenders with higher offers.

(2.) The main submission raised by Mr. A.S Vakil for Mr. S.B Vakil on behalf of petition relates to the second objection. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that the amount of deposit of 25% of the purchase price was tendered by him as well by the petitioner by open bank draft. The said tender of draft being of 25% of the purchase price it was very easy for the other side or other tenderers to know the exact quotation of price, and therefore, it was possible for the other tenderers to adjust their offer accordingly. This submission has found favour with the Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that both the present petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1 had submitted their amount of 25% deposit by open bank drafts and the said bank drafts were not placed in sealed cover alongwith the quotation of price.

(3.) Therefore, according to the Tribunal there was breach of specific condition mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore, the tender submitted by the respondent No. 1 as well as by the petitioner was not legally submitted or they were inconsistent with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. It was, therefore, found by the Tribunal that the Jt. Charity Commissioner was not justified in giving his consent to the acceptance of higher tender of the present petitioner. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.