GHANSHYAM V KUKREJA Vs. BHAGNARI PANCHAYAT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 30-6-2004 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra state, Mumbai allowing the application filed under section 36 (1 ) (a) of the Bombay Public trusts Act, 1950 (for short, "trust Act" ). The application No. J-4/95 was filed by respondent no. 1-trust (for short, "the trust") seeking sanction of the Charity Commissioner for sale of their plots of land bearing Survey No. 51 (Plot No. 4/2), admeasuring 21 Gunthas and survey No. 223, admeasuring 29 Gunthas, including the bungalow and other structures standing thereon (for short, "the property" ).

(2.) IT appears that in pursuance of the order of the learned Joint Charity commissioner dated 14-12-2001, fresh offers were invited by publishing advertisements in different newspapers. In response thereto, four bidders consisting of the petitioner, respondent no. 3, one M/s. Arshad Developers and M/s. Dolly Developers quoted their offers. The petitioner and Arshad Developers gave their offers of Rs. 81 lacs, while respondent no. 3 of rs. 77 lacs and M/s. Dolly Developers of Rs. 70 lacs. It is not disputed that after opening the bids on 6-3-2002, all the four bidders were invited to give in writing in the prescribed form as to whether they were ready to enhance the bid. After completing all the formalities, the trust held a meeting on 11-4-2002 in which the offer of respondent no. 3 was accepted and, accordingly, the petitioner was informed by a letter dated 12-4-2002 that his offer was not acceptable and hence not forwarded to the charity Commissioner as required under section 36 of the Trust Act. It appears that the trust had already entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short "the MOU") with respondent no. 3 by virtue of which he cleared the encumbrances by getting necessary surrender of tenancy rights from the tenants in the property. Admittedly, the petitioner and other bidders were kept informed about the mou at the very inception. It further appears that, albeit, respondent no. 3 had initially given the offer of Rs. 77 lacs, had subsequently enhanced it to Rs. 81 lacs. The matter thereafter went before the Charity Commissioner, who ultimately accorded sanction to sale of the property in favour of respondent no. 3 by the order impugned in the present petition.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties for quite some time and perused the impugned order and other material placed before me. The petitioner has challenged the sanction accorded by the Charity commissioner on merits and on the ground that the impugned order is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard.