FATMABAI B BACHOOALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order passed by the 2nd respondent upon an application moved under section 36 (2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950- hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 3 to 11 and the deceased respondent No. 12 were office bearers of a Public Trust known as Khoja Sumat Trust registered under the aforementioned Act. This Trust owned property bearing House No. 131/a, Nishanpada Road, Bombay-9. Petitioner was in occupation of the property as a tenant and the rent payable by her was meagre. For this reason, the Trust decided to sell the property. Advertisements were published in a certain number of newspapers and quotations invited from intending purchasers. Amongst the offers were the petitioner who quoted a price of Rs. 40,000/- and Mahendra G. Wadhwani, whose quotation was for Rs. 50,000/ -. The Trustees expressed a preference for the bid offered by the petitioner and approached the then Charity Commissioner for sanction under section 36 (1) of the Act. The order passed on 17th March, 1982 passed by the then Charity Commissioner is at Exh. B. The learned Officer sanctioned the proposal to sell the property to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/ -. On 15th June, 1982, a conveyance in favour of the petitioner was executed by the Trustees and the registration took place on 6th July, 1983. The deceased Respondent No. 12 in June, 1983 moved the application under section 36 (2) of the Act, the order passed whereon, has occasioned the present petition.

(3.) IN the application under section 36 (2) the 12th respondents case was that the Trustees had obtained the sanction dated 17th March, 1982 by practice of fraud and misrepresentation and also concealment of the offer of Wadhwani to purchase the property for Rs. 50,000/- which sum was 25% in excess of that offered by the petitioner. Had Wadhwanis offer been placed before the Charity Commissioner, he would not have accorded the sanction dated 17th March, 1982. The application was opposed by the other Trustees as also the petitioner. The stand taken by them was that nothing had been concealed from the predecessor of the Charity Commissioner hearing the application. In fact the petitioner had to recover from the Trust a sum of near about Rs. 24,000/- which she had spent on carrying out repairs to the property. Regard being had to this factor and also the conditions and obligations annexed to the offer of others including Wadhwani, the Trust had done the prudent thing by acceptance of the petitioners offer.