Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Arole Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13/9/2013 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. By that order, the Joint Charity Commissioner allowed Application No.5 of 2009 filed under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and revoked the permission granted earlier under Section 36(1)(b) of the said Act for the sale of trust property belonging to the public trust known as Dhakata Shaikh Salla Durgah, registered in 1952. The property was the subject matter of the permission. The mode of succession of trustees was prescribed by a judgment in Appeal No.539 of 1957. The respondents, including the original applicants under Section 36(2), contended that the permission was obtained by misrepresentation and that the sale was not for the benefit of the trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner, after hearing the parties, revoked the permission. The petitioner argued that the Joint Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revoke the permission under Section 36(2) and that the order was passed without proper application of mind. The court examined the provisions of the Act and the facts. It held that the Joint Charity Commissioner had the power to revoke permission under Section 36(2) if the conditions for grant were not satisfied. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the sale was for the benefit of the trust or that the procedure was followed. The court also noted that the petitioner had not complied with the conditions imposed in the permission. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. The court directed that the rule be discharged and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Bombay Public Trusts Act - Revocation of Permission - Section 36(2) - The Joint Charity Commissioner has the power to revoke permission granted under Section 36(1)(b) if the conditions for grant are not satisfied or if there is non-compliance. The court upheld the revocation as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the sale was for the benefit of the trust and that the procedure was followed. (Paras 2-28)
B) Bombay Public Trusts Act - Sale of Trust Property - Section 36(1)(b) - Permission to sell trust property can be granted only if the transaction is necessary or beneficial for the trust. The court found that the sale was not for the benefit of the trust and that the petitioner had not complied with the conditions. (Paras 3-28)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - The High Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality and procedural correctness of the order. The court found no error in the Joint Charity Commissioner's order and dismissed the petition. (Paras 2, 28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner was justified in revoking the permission granted under Section 36(1)(b) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, on an application under Section 36(2) of the said Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The order of the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 13/9/2013 was upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- Section 36(1)(b) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (04) 60
WRIT PETITION NO.10471 OF 2013
Mr. Mohan Pungalia i/by Mr. Abhishek Pungalia for the Petitioner, Mr. L S Gaikwad for the Respondent No.1, Mr. Ravi G Shinde for the Respondent No.9, Mr. S D Rayrikar AGP for the Respondent No.10
M/s. Arole Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Shaikh Sadullah Shahabuddin Peerzade and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner revoking permission to sell trust property.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the order dated 13/9/2013 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner allowing Application No.5 of 2009 and revoking the permission granted under Section 36(1)(b) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the revocation of permission to sell trust property, claiming that the Joint Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revoke under Section 36(2) and that the order was erroneous.
Previous Decisions
The Joint Charity Commissioner had initially granted permission under Section 36(1)(b) for the sale of trust property. Subsequently, on an application under Section 36(2) by the respondents, the permission was revoked by the order dated 13/9/2013.
Issues
Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to revoke the permission granted under Section 36(1)(b) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, under Section 36(2) of the said Act.
Whether the order of revocation was passed without proper application of mind and was perverse.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Joint Charity Commissioner had no power to revoke the permission under Section 36(2) and that the order was passed without considering the material on record.
The respondents contended that the permission was obtained by misrepresentation and that the sale was not for the benefit of the trust, justifying revocation.
Ratio Decidendi
The Joint Charity Commissioner has the power under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, to revoke permission granted under Section 36(1)(b) if the conditions for grant are not satisfied or if there is non-compliance. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the sale was for the benefit of the trust and that the procedure was followed, and therefore the revocation was justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 13/9/2013 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune by which order the Application No.5 of 2009 filed under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act came to be allowed and resultantly the permission granted by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 36(1)(b) of the said Act came to be revoked.
The property in question which was the subject matter of the permission granted under Section 36(1)(b) of the said Act belongs to the public trust known as Dhakata Shaikh Salla Durgah which was registered as such under the said Act in the year 1952.
Procedural History
The Joint Charity Commissioner initially granted permission under Section 36(1)(b) for sale of trust property. Thereafter, the respondents filed Application No.5 of 2009 under Section 36(2) seeking revocation. The Joint Charity Commissioner allowed the application and revoked the permission on 13/9/2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: 36(1)(b), 36(2)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
