ARUNODAYA PREFAB Vs. M.D. KAMBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO grant the reliefs sought in these Petitions would be to open the flood -gates of litigation to all those who are disappointed in purchasing property proposed to be sold by a public charitable trust.

(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 3 to 9 in these petitions are the trustees of a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The trust owns inter alia, land situated at New Marine Lines, Bombay, which was in days gone by used as a cemetery for Scotmen dying in Bombay. On December 13, 1972 the trustees entered into an agreement to sell to respondent No. 2 the said land, admeasuring about 4.000 sq. yds., at the rate of Rs. 65 per sq. ft. The agreement provided that the respondent No. 2 would accept the title of the trustees and would not administer requisitions thereon. It provided also that the second respondent would pay all taxes and outgoings of the said land upon being put into possession and the costs and the stamp duty pertaining to the sale. On the same day, a supplemental agreement was entered into between the trustees and the respondent No. 2 whereunder the respondent No. 2 undertook the obligation of removing at his cost the tombstones standing upon the said land and re -erecting them, in one case at the Wilson College, Bombay, and in the remaining cases at the Sewree Cemetery, Bombay. The respondent No. 2 agreed to make available to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for use for public benefit 3,000 sq. ft. in the building to be erected by him on the said land free of cost and 9,000 sq. ft. therein to the Nalanda Dance Academy, connected with the University of Bombay, free of charge. Oh February 11, 1973 the trustees applied to the Charity Commissioner (the first respondent) for sanction of the proposed sale under the provisions of Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. On June 30, 1973 the Charity Commissioner directed the trustees to advertise the said land for sale. The trustees did not do so. On their own initiative the petitioners in the first petition made an offer for the said land on* October 18, 1973 in the sum of Rs. 75 lakhs, which they stated they would be willing to enhance; the said offer was subject to the trustees making out a marketable title. The offer was sent to the Charity Commissioner with a copy to the trustees. On December 24, 1973 the Charity Commissioner called a meeting to consider the application for sanction whereat he invited the petitioners in the first petition to remain present. It is contended in the first petition that a representative of these petitioners were present at that meeting and raised their offer to Rs. 85 lakhs. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the Charity Commissioner, based upon the minutes of that meeting, it is denied that any representative of the first petitioner was present at that meeting. The trustees did not attend the meeting. On December 31, 1973 the Charity Commissioner wrote to the trustees asking them to comply with his directions to advertise the said land for sale. On March 12, 1974 the trustees wrote to the Charity Commissioner declining to advertise the said land for sale contending that this would be contrary to their religious tenets and that they had morally committed themselves to sell the said land to respondents No. 2. Sometime in March 1974 the petitioners in the second petition wrote to the trustees offering to purchase the said land at the rate of Rs. 115 per sq. ft. provided that the trustees had a marketable title thereto. On March 21, 1974 the Charity Commissioner wrote to the trustees declining to sanction the proposed sale. On March 22, 1974 a meeting was held before the Charity Commissioner at which the trustees and the respondent No. 2 were present. The trustees having declined to ask the respondent No. 2 to increase his offer for the sale of the property, the respondent No. 2 volunteered to purchase the said land at the rate of Rs. 92 per sq. ft. He assured the Charity Commissioner that he would abide by his agreement to give free 3,000 sq. ft. of the built -up area to the Bombay Municipal Corporation and 9,000 sq. ft. to the Nalanda Dance Institute. On March 22, 1974 the Charity Commissioner passed the impugned Order sanctioning the sale.

(3.) MR . Rana contended that the petitioners had the requisite locus standi to present the petitions because the petitioners were prejudicially affected by the impugned order inasmuch as their offers were not considered or accepted by the Charity Commissioner and because they had been prejudicially affected by being not associated with the enquiry held by the Charity Commissioner.