Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9333/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9333 of 2008
=========================================================
BABUBHAI
SHANKARBHAI JARIWALA & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MARTIN
SOLOMAN CHRISTIE & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RN SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 08/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioners by this petition have challenged the order passed by the
Charity Commissioner, and its confirmation thereof by the Revenue
Tribunal, whereby the application for grant of permission under
Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act for giving land on lease
basis is rejected.
Heard
Mr. Shah learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
The
contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that as the powers
were given to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 for managing
property, and therefore it is deemed that there is power with the
respondent No. 1 to give property on lease basis. He submitted that
the application was made before the Charity Commissioner, which has
been rejected, and the tribunal has confirmed the said decision of
the Charity Commissioner against which the present petition.
Therefore, this Court may interfere.
Having
considered the above, it deserves to be recorded that both the lower
authorities namely Charity Commissioner, as well as the tribunal
have concurrently found that the circumstances of compiling
necessities are not satisfactorily demonstrated for disposal/lease
of the property, and while taking such view the tribunal has also
relied upon the decision of this Court reported at 1993 (1) GLH 473.
If the principles laid down in the said decision are considered, it
cannot be said that exercise of the power by the Charity
Commissioner, or by the tribunal is arbitrary, which may call for
interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Apart
from the above, it deserves to be recorded that the power with the
respondent No.1, was as the Manager trust, therefore, to manage the
property, and unless there is express power for transfer, such power
cannot be read. On the said aspect also findings of the tribunal
cannot be said to be perverse, which may call for interference.
In
any case the property could not be transferred without inviting
offer from the interested person and settled norms for disposal of
the property was required to be followed. There were no extra
ordinary circumstances to make departure therefrom demonstrated
before either authority. Therefore, authorities have rightly
observed that proper procedure is also not followed for taking
decision to give property on lease basis by inviting offer from the
interested person/public.
In
view of the above, and the reasons recorded by the Charity
Commissioner, and its confirmation thereof by the tribunal, shows
that it cannot be said that there is any arbitrary exercise of the
power or that the discretion exercised is perverse in any manner,
which may call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution.
In
view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence,
rejected.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
Suresh*
Top