RADHAJI SHRIPAT PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) RULE. Since short point is involved, by consent, RULE is made returnable forthwith.

(3.) HAVING considered the submission of the respective Counsel and having gone through the compilation of writ petition, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The cause title of the impugned order discloses that the petitioner's application was numbered as 29 of 2008. It further shows that the said application is filed under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. In that view of the matter, it was not necessary for the respondent No. 2 to require petitioner's Advocate to show the provisions under which the said application is filed. Admittedly, the petitioner-Trust as well as respondent No.3-Trust are registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. By the application in question, the petitioner wants to transfer the management of Shri Sant Dnyaneshwar School, Village Mawadi, Tahika Dindori, District-Nashik alongwith its property to respondent No.3-Trust. Under section 36(1)(a) of the B.P.T.Act, 1950, such transfer can be effected only after obtaining prior permission of the Charity Commissioner and therefore, the petitioner's application was maintainable before respondent No.2. Be that as it may, earlier the petitioner had filed Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2008 to transfer the management of Sant Dnyaneshwar Vidyalaya, Bhaygaon, Tahika-Peth and Sant Dnyaneshwar Vidyalaya, Rasegaon, Tahika Dindori to Lasalgaon Shikshan Sahayyak Mandal, Lasalgaon, Tal. Niphad, District-Nashik. This application was allowed and sanction was granted under the provisions of section 36(1)(a) of the B.P.T.Act by respondent No.2 on 30th April, 2008. In these circumstances, in my view, the respondent No.2 was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner's Advocate failed to point out any provision under which the said application is filed. It is now settled position of law that while considering an application under section 36(1)(a) of the B.P.T. Act, the Charity Commissioner is required to consider two aspects i.e. Whether the Trust is in genuine need to sell its immovable property and whether the said property is being sold in the interest of trust and its beneficiaries. These aspects were not considered by respondent No.2 as the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground of maintainability. In the light of above discussion, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order : 1. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2. 2. The respondent No. 2 shall decide the petitioner's application on merits in the light of observations made above as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petition disposed of.