GANGABHAGAT TRUST Vs. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following relief.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner trustee is a registered trust under the provision of Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 and is essentially created for housing Raghuvansh Temple situated at Lohana Para Rajkot, wherein the idol of Lord Rama is located in the City of Rajkot. The petitioner-trust is carrying out temple activities for the religion of Hindu and the trust property consisting several shops and godowns right from 1988. By virtue of Sections 35 of Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950, the Joint Charity Commissioner has granted permission for godowns and shops vide orders dated 29/09/19888 and 07/10/1988. Pursuant to the said permission, godowns and shops were constructed and approximately 24 shops and godowns were leased out to various persons and for leasing out according to the petitioner specific permission has been granted by the office of Charity Commissioner at the relevant point of time in 1988.

(3.) When the petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate Mr. Yatin Soni appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that while issuing an order dated 27.09.2017, the Joint Charity Commissioner has no jurisdiction or the authority to pass such order and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn an attention of this Court to Sections 35 and 36 of the Act and thereby has indicated that since there is no question of fund being utilized by the trust for different purpose, there is no question of seeking prior permission from the office of Joint Charity Commissioner because originally the godowns and shops were permitted to be constructed right from 1988 and therefore, there is no question of violation of any of the provision. Neither the petitioner has transferred its property in any manner to third party nor has leased out any property so far even if it is constructed and kept ready and therefore, the question of violation at this stage would arise. Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate has further contended that even there is no violation of any provision of GDCR of Rajkot, which would entitled either to corporation or Charity Commissioner to pull down the construction, In fact, the entire construction is completed by the petitioner after seeking approval of plan from the corporation and it is only at the instance of the Charity Commissioner the BU permission is granted otherwise according to Mr. Soni this is even the case of the respondent authority that construction is in violation of any of the provision of GDCR hence, when the construction has been put up only after seeking permission from the competent authority viz. Rajkot Municipal Corporation, there is no question of restraining the Corporation by Charity Commissioner from granting BU permission. Hence, the action on the part of the respondent authority is absolutely unjust, arbitrary and tainted with malafides. Hence, Mr. Soni, learned advocate has requested the Court to grant relief as prayed for in the petition.