NAUSHEER B DORDEE Vs. DARYAS NARIMAN MASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No. TEN/AS/6/2009 dated 26.10.2010 confirming the order passed by the Jt. Charity Commissioner, Surat, in Application No. 36/3/2008 dated 20.6.2008, may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) IT is contended that the permission granted under sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is erroneous as there was no legal necessity established for lease of the immovable property for a period of 99 years in favour respondent No. 3- M/s. Laxmi Motors Ltd. It was submitted that Application No. 36/3/2008 was made by the Trust seeking permission of the Charity Commissioner under sec. 36 of the Act for grant of such lease in favour of respondent No.3, M/s. Laxmi Motors Ltd. which has been granted without considering the relevant aspects including the legal necessity of the Trust. It is also contended that M/s. Laxmi Motors and M/s. Laxmi Motors Pvt. Ltd. are two different entities which has not been appreciated. It is contended that the petitioners being Parsis by religion and permanent residents of Surat city are affected as the beneficiaries of respondent No.1 Trust and therefore the present petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Ms. Thakore however submitted that permission has been granted without appreciation of law, and without considering the relevant aspects thepermission as prayed for in Application No. 36/3/2008 has been granted by the impugned order dated 20.6.2008 by the Charity Commissioner in purported exercise of power under sec. 36 of the Act. She pointedly referred to the clauses in the lease deed and submitted that by such grant of lease for 99 years in favour of respondent No.3, the permission for development is also granted creating the rights of others for construction of flats etc. She referred to the recitals in the lease deed and submitted that it is a transfer of the property in question and it would cause prejudice to the interest of the Trust as well as other beneficiaries like the petitioners who are of Parsi community. She referred to the map also and submitted that it is a huge land and the property is used as 'Dokhma land' by the Parsi community with the tower which would be useful for maintaining the desired environment and atmosphere. She therefore submitted that whether the alienation by grant of lease for 99 years in favour of respondent No.3 is fair and whether it is in the interest of justice of respondent No.1-Trust is required to be considered. She emphasised that when there is no legal necessity inasmuch as the Trust is having sufficient funds, there is no need for such grant of lease in favour of respondent No.3.