JALARAM VIRPUR SMRUTI TRUST Vs. JOINT CHARITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner is registered trust, which came to be formed on account of the trust deed dated 17-3-1961, and it is registered vide Registration No. A/2132 at Rajkot. As per the petitioner, the purpose and the object of the trust is to provide facility to the pilgrims, who visit Virpur to offer their prayers to Shri Jalarambapa, while on the way of Somnath, Dwarka etc. As per the petitioner, the trust is running Guest House, and for maintenance of the Guest House, it is incurring expenses like electricity, bedding and other expenses, and the amount/charge is being collected for maintenance of such expenses on token basis from the visitors/ pilgrims. As per the petitioner running of Guest House is a business activity, which would fall in the category of Rule 32 (4) of the Bombay Public Trust (Gujarat) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to the 'rules' ). It appears that demand notice was issued for recovery of the contribution, by the Asst. Charity commissioner. The petitioner raised objection, and contended that it has paid the amount of contribution, based on the net income, after deduction of the expenses. The Asst. Charity Commissioner, ultimately passed the order on 11-8-1995, whereby held that the assessment be treated under Rule 32 (4 ). It appears the Joint Charity Commissioner, in suo motu exercise of the power under rule 33 (6), initiated the proceedings against the order of the Asst. Charity commissioner. The petitioner submitted written reply, and contended that the order passed by the Asst. Charity Commissioner is legal. The Joint Charity commissioner, ultimately found that running of Guest House (Atithi Gruh) cannot be said as trade/business, and therefore, not falling within the category of Rule 32 (4) of the Rules, and therefore, he allowed the proceedings, and set aside the order passed by the Asst. Charity Commissioner, and directed for the recovery of the remaining amount. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(2.) HEARD Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Trusha Patel learned A. G. P. for the respondent.

(3.) THE principal aspect which may deserves consideration in the present proceedings is the scope of ambit of Rule 33 (4), and as to whether the activity of the petitioner for running Guest House at Virpur can be said as falling under rule 33 (4) of the Rules or not.