Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Terna Public Charitable Trust, filed two writ petitions challenging orders of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur. The first order dated 11.11.2008 rejected the trust's application No. 04/2008 under Section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for sanction to alienate trust property, on the ground that the trust failed to establish genuine need. The second order dated 23.01.2009 rejected subsequent application No. 13/2008 for the same relief as not maintainable. The High Court found that the Joint Charity Commissioner's first order suffered from non-application of mind as it did not consider the trust's financial statements and other evidence. The court set aside both orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Commissioner to decide the application on merits within three months. The court held that a subsequent application is maintainable if based on fresh facts, but since the first order was set aside, the second application became infructuous.
Headnote
A) Charity Law - Alienation of Trust Property - Section 36(1) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Genuine Need - The Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the trust's application for sanction to sell property on the ground that the trust failed to establish genuine need. The High Court held that the order suffered from non-application of mind as the Commissioner did not consider the trust's financial statements and other evidence. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5)
B) Charity Law - Maintainability of Subsequent Application - Section 36(1) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - The Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the second application for the same relief as not maintainable. The High Court held that a subsequent application is maintainable if based on fresh facts or changed circumstances. Since the first order was set aside, the second application became infructuous. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner's rejection of the trust's application for sanction to alienate property under Section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was proper, and whether a subsequent application for the same relief is maintainable.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.11.2008 and 23.01.2009 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur, for fresh consideration of application No. 04/2008 in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties, within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Section 36(1) Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950
- alienation of trust property
- genuine need
- non-application of mind
- maintainability of subsequent application
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (06) 18
Writ Petition No. 5888 of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 6073 of 2009
Vinit Naik h/f Sachin Deshmukh and I.M. Khairdi for petitioner; K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3; K.C. Sant for respondent No. 4
Terna Public Charitable Trust
Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur; Charity Commissioner, Mumbai; State of Maharashtra; Institute for Technology and Management
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders of Joint Charity Commissioner rejecting applications for sanction to alienate trust property under Section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner trust sought setting aside of the orders and direction to grant sanction for alienation.
Filing Reason
The Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the trust's application for sanction to sell property on the ground of failure to establish genuine need, and subsequently rejected a second application as not maintainable.
Previous Decisions
Joint Charity Commissioner rejected application No. 04/2008 on 11.11.2008 and application No. 13/2008 on 23.01.2009.
Issues
Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner's order rejecting the trust's application for sanction under Section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was proper.
Whether a subsequent application for the same relief is maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Joint Charity Commissioner failed to consider the trust's financial statements and other evidence, and the order suffered from non-application of mind.
Respondents supported the orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The Joint Charity Commissioner must apply his mind to the evidence and materials on record while deciding an application under Section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. A subsequent application for the same relief is maintainable if based on fresh facts or changed circumstances, but becomes infructuous if the earlier order is set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur by his order dated 11.11.2008, has rejected application No. 04/2008, filed by the petitioner/trust, for grant of sanction under section 36 (1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950... on the ground that the petitioner/trust has failed to establish the genuine need to sell the property.
By an order dated 23rd January 2009, the Joint Charity Commissioner has rejected the subsequent application No. 13/2008... on the ground that the second application for the same relief is not maintainable.
Procedural History
The petitioner trust filed application No. 04/2008 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur, for sanction to alienate property under Section 36(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The application was rejected on 11.11.2008. The trust filed a subsequent application No. 13/2008, which was rejected on 23.01.2009 as not maintainable. The trust then filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, which were heard together and disposed of by this judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950: Section 36(1)
