MANAV KENDRA EDUCATION TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANAV Kendra Education Trust, through its Chairman Shri Jayendra V.Sharma, has filed this petition invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs:

(2.) HEARD Mr.N.D.Nanavaty, learned senior counsel with Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.K.G.Vakharia, leaned senior counsel with Mr.Dipen Shah for Respondent No.4 and Mr.P.K.Jani, learned Government Pleader with Mr.Hardik Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State authorities ­ Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

(3.) MR .Vakharia, learned senior advocate has relied on the affidavitinreply dated 29.05.2013 filed on behalf of Respondent No.4 Trust and has vehemently contended that the properties in question belong to Respondent No.4 and the Respondent No.4 Trust has remained in possession of it all throughout. It is contended that one Mr.Vijendra P.Sharma was one of the Trustees in the Respondent No.4 Trust, and the petitioner Trust is created under the Chairmanship of one of the sons of said Mr.V.P.Sharma, only with a view to commit fraud with Respondent No.4 Trust, and further that by the said Trustee, rights were sought to be created in favour of the Petitioner Trust of his own son, in the manner unknown to law. The circumstances related with the said transaction are explained in detail by the affidavitinreply filed on behalf of Respondent No.4. There is no rejoinder to it. Attention of this Court is also drawn to Sections 22 and 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and Rules 13 and 24 of the Rules framed thereunder, to contend that the leasedeed, which is relied on by the petitioner Trust, is nullity in the eyes of law. It is pointed out that even if the said lease is considered, it has already outlived its life. It is contended that so far the prayers against Respondent No.4 Trust is concerned, the same cannot be gone into by this Court and it is further contended that, in any case, the petitioner Trust has statutory alternative remedy under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Learned senior counsel for Respondent No.4 has further contended that grant of any relief by this Court in favour of petitioner Trust would mean allowing perpetuation of illegality, which this Court may not do. Reliance is placed on the following decisions by the learned advocate for Respondent No.4 Trust to contend that grant of any relief by this Court in favour of the petitioner Trust would create an illegal situation and further that the petitioner Trust need to at least show its right in the property in question, before praying for any relief from this Court.