PRAVASH HAZRA Vs. SUBRATA SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the constitution of India is directed against the order no. 11 dated 24/1/2006 and order no. 15 dated 4/3/2006 passed by the learned district Judge, South 24 Parganas in Misc. Case No. 310 of 1998 whereby by the first order dated 24/1/2006 the learned District judge has granted permission to sell the debuttar properties as described in the body of the application to M/s. Power transmission and Casting Private Limited at a consideration of rs. 25,00,000/- in modification of the earlier order dated 9/9/1998 and by the second order dated 4/3/2006 the learned judge has rejected the prayer of the applicant to rescind the order dated 24/1/2006.

(2.) THE fact of the case leading to the passing of the impugned orders is that by order dated 09. 09. 1998 the learned District judge granted permission to the trustee to sell certain immovable properties to one intending purchaser namely, Sri Pravash Hazra or his nominee at a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000. 00. More than 8 years had passed; but Sri Pravash Hazra was not able to complete the transaction and as such the trustee revoked the power of attorney executed in favour of Sri Hazra intimating him to cancel the agreement of sale dated 10/12/1997. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 24/1/2006 the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas modified the order dated 9/9/1998 and permitted the sebait, Prem Chand Sen, to sell the property at a consideration of rs. 25,00,000. 00 to M/s. Power Transmission and Casting Private limited along with other conditions. Sri Hazra filed a petition praying for modification of the said order and giving him an opportunity to purchase the debuttar property at the said consideration money and thus to rescind the order dated 24/1/2006. That petition was rejected. So, Sri Hazra has filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india to set aside the impugned orders.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended before me on law points. First of all, he has submitted that the impugned orders are not maintainable at all because Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 will not be applicable in the instant case because the intended sale does not come within the meaning of management or administration of the trust property. He has also contended that the provisions of Section 7 of the Charitable and religious Trust Act, 1920 will not also apply because the trust in the instant case was not created or existing for a public purpose of charitable or religious nature and so the Section 7 of the charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 could not apply at all.