Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions challenging a common order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Pune, refusing permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for the sale of trust property. The petitioner trust, Bara Imam Masjid Trust, is a public trust registered under the Act, owning land in Ahmednagar. The trust sought permission to sell the land, claiming that the sale was necessary for the trust's development and to generate funds for its objects. The Charity Commissioner refused permission, holding that the trust had not demonstrated any urgent necessity or benefit to the trust from the sale. The court, after hearing arguments, upheld the Charity Commissioner's order, finding that the trust had not made out a case for interference under Article 226. The court noted that the sale of trust property is a serious matter and requires strict compliance with Section 36, and the Charity Commissioner's discretion should not be lightly interfered with. The court dismissed both writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36 - Sale of Trust Property - Permission - The Charity Commissioner refused permission for sale of trust land, holding that the trust failed to demonstrate urgent necessity or benefit to the trust. The court upheld the refusal, noting that the sale was not for the benefit of the trust and the trust had not shown any compelling need. (Paras 1-10)
B) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36 - Discretion of Charity Commissioner - The Charity Commissioner has wide discretion in granting or refusing permission for sale of trust property, and the court will not interfere unless the decision is perverse or arbitrary. (Paras 5-8)
C) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36 - Benefit to Trust - The sale of trust property must be for the benefit of the trust, and mere commercial expediency or desire to develop property is not sufficient. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Charity Commissioner was justified in refusing permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for the sale of trust property, and whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The order of the Charity Commissioner dated 19.4.2005 refusing permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 36 of Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- Permission for sale of trust property
- Public trust
- Charity Commissioner's discretion
- Benefit to trust
- Urgent necessity
Case Details
Writ Petition No.3965 of 2005 with Writ Petition No. 4151 of 2005
Mr. R.D. Soni for petitioners (WP 3965/2005); Mr. Pravin Samdani with Mr. Sanjay Gawade for petitioners (WP 4151/2005); Mr. Ramesh Dube Patil for respondent no.7 (WP 3965/2005) and respondent no.2 & 7 (WP 4151/2005); Mr. S.V. Dhakephalkar for R. No. 30 (WP 3965/2005) and R. No. 31 (WP 4151/2005); Mr. A.V. Anturkar for Mrs. Vanita V. Bakre Shastri for R. Nos. 13,17, 18 & 21 (WP 3965/2005) and R. Nos. 11,14, 20 & 21 (WP 4151/2005); Mr. P.N. Jodhi for Respondent No. 4 (WP 3965/2005); Mr. M.H. Solkar, AGP, for State (WP 4151/2005)
Bara Imam Masjid Trust & Ors. (in WP 3965/2005); M/s. Rajvi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., & Ors. (in WP 4151/2005)
The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of the Charity Commissioner refusing permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for sale of trust property.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Charity Commissioner's order dated 19.4.2005 and a direction to grant permission for sale of the trust property.
Filing Reason
The Charity Commissioner refused permission for sale of trust property, and the petitioners challenged that refusal.
Previous Decisions
The Charity Commissioner, Pune, passed a common order dated 19.4.2005 refusing permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Issues
Whether the Charity Commissioner's refusal to grant permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for sale of trust property was justified.
Whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the sale was necessary for the development of the trust and to generate funds for its objects.
The respondents supported the Charity Commissioner's order, contending that the trust failed to demonstrate any urgent necessity or benefit to the trust from the sale.
Ratio Decidendi
The sale of trust property under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 requires strict compliance and demonstration of urgent necessity or benefit to the trust. The Charity Commissioner has wide discretion, and the court will not interfere unless the decision is perverse or arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
These two writ petitions are challenging the common order passed by the Charity Commissioner, Pune dated 19.4.2005 refusing to grant permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to the petitioners for the sale of the trust property.
The petitioner trust is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 bearing PTR No. B-189 (ANR).
Procedural History
The Charity Commissioner, Pune, passed a common order dated 19.4.2005 refusing permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioners filed two writ petitions challenging that order, which were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: Section 36, Section 50A(3)
