AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bambhania with learned advocate Ms. Tanuja N.Kachchhi for petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Amit Patel for respondent No. 1 as well as learned advocate Mr. Tolia for respondents No. 4 and 5 on caveat. Today,learned Advocate Mr. Tolia has placed on record affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 and copy thereof has been served by him to learned advocate Ms. Kachchhi for petitioner. Therefore, same has been taken on record.
In present petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by Jt. Charity Commissioner dated 18th August, 2010, page 34 to 52. In said order, objection application preferred by petitioner has been rejected by Jt. Charity Commissioner against which present petition is filed by petitioner. Name of petitioner No. 1 is Kaushik Vinayakbhai Bhatt and name of petitioner No. 2 is Shri Rameshbhai Manjibhai Bhadra, whose objection application has been rejected by Jt. Charity Commissioner . The Jt. Charity Commissioner passed order u/s 36 of Bombay Public Trusts Act and ten days time has been granted to petitioner to approach higher authority and wait upto 14th September, 2010 and thereafter, on 7th September, 2010 and 15th September, 2010, remaining objection will be decided u/s 36 of Act on merits by Jt. Charity Commissioner
Learned Advocate Mr. Tolia for respondents No. 4 and 5 has raised serious objection against maintainability of this petition on the ground that petitioner is having alternative efficacious remedy to prefer appeal before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal u/s 36(3) of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. He relied upon relevant Section 36(3) of said Act. Therefore, Section 36 of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is quoted as under:
Alienation of immovable property of public interest:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of trust -
(a) No sale, mortgage,exchange or gift of any immovable property, and
(b) no lease for a period exceeding ten years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non agricultural land or a building belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner.
(2) The decision of the Charity Commissioner under Sub-section (1) shall be communicated to the trustees and shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Any person aggrieved by such decision may appeal to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal within thirty days from the date of its publication.
(4) Such decision shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) be final.
Relying upon said section, learned advocate Mr. Tolia submitted that this petition may not be entertained by this Court. However, learned advocate Mr. Bambhania appearing for petitioner has pointed out number of irregularities and illegalities allegedly committed by Jt. Charity Commissioner in detail. He also pointed out number of facts which suggests mala fide and bias on the part of Jt. Charity Commissioner. He referred to amendment carried out as per order page 129 in respect of change of description of property of trust and also pointed out that tender which has been issued by trust, there are some collusion with other parties and also submitted that order which has been passed by Jt. Charity Commissioner, page 131, for that, there was no separate application made by respondent trust. In short, his submission is that number of facts which have been highlighted to this Court have not been properly appreciated and considered by Jt. Charity Commissioner and decision has been taken by Jt. Charity Commissioner just to help respondent trust.
I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Bambhania for petitioner which are submissions almost on merits relating to certain procedural irregularities alleged against respondents No. 4 and 5 by petitioner but for that, according to my opinion,submissions which have been made on behalf of petitioner and facts which have been highlighted on behalf of petitioner could as well be highlighted by petitioner before appellate authority, if appeal is preferred by petitioner against order dated 18th August, 2010 u/s 36(3) of the Act. Therefore, according to my opinion, as petitioner is having alternative equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal to challenge present order dated 18th August,2010 passed by Jt. Charity Commissioner and for that ground alone, present petition is not entertained by this Court and accordingly present petition is disposed of on that ground alone without expressing any opinion on merits and also without giving any opinion in opinion in respect of submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Bambhania which are relating to facts and merits of matter.
Accordingly, this petition is not entertained and stands disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. No order as to costs.