KUMAR CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. DESHASTHA REGVED SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard for final disposal by consent.

(2.) THIS writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nasik dated May 15, 2001 in Application No. 63 of 2001 according sanction in respect of alienation of Survey No. 781 area 1 hectare 14 ares situated at Nasik owned by the respondent No. 1 trust in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for a total consideration of Rs. 51 lacs and developed plot of 1000 sq. yds. as per the terms and conditions agreed upon in the agreement of sale dated 2nd September, 1999.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent trust issued public notice on 23-7-1999 declaring its intention to alienate the subject trust property. In response to the said public notice, in all seven offers were received. The same were opened on 1-9-1999. It transpired that the petitioner was one of the offeror and had offered sum of Rs. 45/- lacs, whereas the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (i. e. N. K. Consultant) made offer of Rs. 51/- lacs. Besides offering amount of Rs. 51 lacs, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in addition offered developed plot of 1000 sq. yds. to be given to the respondent trust and also accommodating tenants occupying the trust property free of costs. Since the trust found the offer made by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to be more favourable, it entered into agreement to sell dated 2nd September, 1999 and made application to the Joint Charity Commissioner under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act for according sanction in respect of that transaction. The Joint Charity Commissioner in exercise of powers under section 36 of the Act held enquiry in which all the seven offerors including the petitioner participated. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, its plea has been recorded in para 4 of the impugned order. Besides the petitioner, M/s. Bhakti Deep Construction Pvt. Ltd. also participated and improved their earlier offer from Rs. 45 lacs to Rs. 57 lacs. This aspect has been duly noted by the Joint Charity Commissioner in para 5 of impugned order. However, the Charity Commissioner has allowed the application preferred by the respondent trust and accorded sanction under section 36 of the Act in respect of the proposed transaction in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The reason which has weighed with the Joint Charity Commissioner for allowing the said application can be discerned from para 9 of the impugned order, which is the only discussion entered into by him. The same reads thus:---