RAMDAS CLUB Vs. MAYUR DILIP VIKHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 2010 arises out of the judgment passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition, setting aside the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner granting permission to the appellant-Trust to sell the property.

(2.) The appellant-Trust is a Public Trusts. The appellant-Trusts owned open land. The appellant-Trust had submitted an application under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act seeking permission to sell the agricultural land, field S. No. 26 and plot owned by it. The appellant-Trust had submitted the draft of public notice to be published in the newspapers to the Charity Commissioner which was approved and was published in the newspapers. Mr. G.G. Agrawal for G.G. Warehousing Corporation had submitted his offer for purchasing the above mentioned agricultural land and plot. An application (Exh. 14) was filed by the appellant-Trust before the Joint Charity Commissioner seeking permission to withdraw the application filed by it under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The learned Charity Commissioner had directed that the Resolution of the Board of Trustees should be filed, showing that the appellant-Trust intended to withdraw the application filed by it under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Mr. Satish Kothari and M/s. Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills, who had also given their offers pursuant to the advertisement, had filed applications before the Charity Commissioner, informing that they had withdrawn the offers given by them for purchasing the property of the appellant-Trust. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner by the order dated 17th of May, 2007 dismissed the application filed by the appellant-Trust under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, for want of prosecution. An application was filed on 30th of November, 2007 praying for restoration of application under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Subsequently, the appellant-Trust had filed an application praying for permission to amend the application filed by it under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The amendment was allowed. The Board of Trustees of the appellant-Trust had accepted the offers of M/s. Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills and passed Resolution to that effect and the copy of the Resolution was submitted before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The relevant documents were filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner by the order dated 15th of October, 2008 granted permission to the appellant-Trusts to sell the property to the M/s. Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills.

(3.) The order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner granting permission to the appellant-Trust to sell the property to M/s. Bajrang Oil Mills and Pulse Mills was challenged before this Court by the respondent Nos. 1 to 9. The claim of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 in the writ petition was that they were persons having interest in the Appellant-Trust and therefore, they had the right to challenge the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, which according to the respondent Nos. 1 to 9, was illegal and unsustainable in law. The learned single Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The appellant-Trust being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge has filed L.P.A. No. 49 of 2010.