Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12511/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12511 of 2010
=============================================
CHARITY
COMMISSIONER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DAKOR
TEMPLE COMMITTEE & 1 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR CB UPADHYAYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 20/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. It
is submitted that respondent No.1 (Dakor Temple Committee) is a trust
registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short “Act
of 1950”). Therefore, respondent No.1 is amenable to
jurisdiction of the authorities named under the Act.
3. Learned
advocate for the petitioner further submits that in view of
provisions of Section 36 of the Act of 1950 pertaining to alienation
of immovable property of Pubic Trust is prohibited when the previous
sanction of the Charity Commissioner and also of specific bar under
Section 80 of the above Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction
to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to
decide or deal with by any officer of authority under this Act, or in
respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority
has been made final and conclusive. Therefore, reliance placed on
clause 12(16) of Dakor Temple Scheme by learned District Judge while
allowing appeal by the impugned order dated 14.5.2010 permitting
respondent No.1 to sell the property of the trust is illegal.
Learned advocate further submitted that Dakor Temple Scheme is
subject to and subservient to provisions of Section 36, 80 and other
provisions of the Act of 1950. Even on merit, the learned Judge
could have examined proposal of respondent No.1 to sell the property
of the trust but no reasons have been assigned.
4. Considering
the above aspects and submissions made by learned advocate for the
petitioner, prima facie respondent No.1 Committee is registered under
provisions of Chapter IV of the Act of 1950 and in view of provisions
of Section 36 and 80 of the Act, the impugned order allowing the
appeal by learned Principal District Judge deserves to be examined at
length finally.
5. Hence,
Rule returnable on 14th December, 2010.
6. Meanwhile,
the order impugned dated 14.5.2010 passed by the learned Principal
District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Civil Misc. Application No.23 of
2008 shall remain stayed.
7. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top