Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In a recent proceeding going on in Bombay High Court before Justice SC Gupte who was hearing a petition presented by Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas impugning the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner in which the petitioner put questions with reference to his arraignment as a party in the matter on the pretext that he was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the revision. The court’s verdict was in favor of the Dwarkadas thereby grating him the relief by repudiating the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner ergo declined to cross out the petitioner’s name from the cause title of a revision application lodged before him under Section 70 A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1951. The framework of case is that Bai Kabibai and Hansraji Morarji Charity Trust is empanelled under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and the petitioner is an ex-trustee. Back in 1985, the trustees signed up into an agreement with a private developer to trade a piece of land in possession of the trust in Ghatkopar and in compliance with abovementioned agreement some of the edifices on the land were rented out by the builders to the trust for a period of 99 years. Subsequently, the Charity Commissioner permitted for sale of the land in 1989.
Later the petitioner was admitted into the board of trustees and in 2003, the edifices on the land which were earlier rented out to the trust were conceded by the trustees to the same developer and subsequently the change was reviewed in front of Charity Commissioner who received it and made necessary alterations in the schedule of the properties in possession of the trust. Further in 2007, the petitioner stepped down as a trustee and a change acquainting the same was accepted by the Charity Commissioner. The problem aroused when, order delivered by the Charity Commissioner in 2003, securing the alterations associating with the sale of certain structures to the developer was called into question and a revision application was filed in 2014 inclusive of the petitioner’s name as a respondent.
Therefore in 2015, the petitioner lodged an application probing clearance from the revision application on the pretext that he had discontinued to be a trustee since long of the trust and was neither a quintessential nor a proper party to the revision application but the same was shunned by the Joint Charity Commissioner. After hearing both the sides the court observed that if the subsistence of the alterations were reported to the Charity Commissioner, then the only focus of attention of inquiry ahead the Joint Charity Commissioner that the petitioner is evidently neither a proper nor a necessary party and therefore the Joint Charity Commissioner was supposed to reflect on the clearance application sought by the petitioner. Thus the court enjoined the petitioner’s name to be expunged as a respondent in the matter and grant the petition.
86540
103860
630
114
59824