SHAIKH AUNALI ESMAILJI Vs. CHAIRTY COMMISSIONER GUJARAT STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 5.7.2012 passed by the respondent Authority in Application No.35/2/2012 along with prayer to grant as prayed for in the said application.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Manager of Dawat Properties Trust, a religious trust and the religious head of Dawoodi Bohra Community is Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb is the sole trustee of the said trust. The objects of the trust are described in PTR of the trust. The trust has a huge accumulated surplus and therefore, sole trustee directed the said surplus to be invested in purchase of immovable property. The petitioner short listed purchase of 10 shops which are just adjacent to the premises and properties of the trust. The vendor and the purchaser negotiated for the sale of unit bearing Nos.3,4,5,8,9,17,18,19,20 and 21 situated on the ground floor of block No."A" admeasuring about total 5710 Sq. Ft. I.e. 530.50 Sq. Mtr. in Sumel Business PartIV building and undivided proportionate land admeasuring 269.30 sq. Mtr. of subplot No.1 of final plot No.62 of Town Planning Scheme No.16 belonging to M/s. Safal Real Estate. For the purpose of holding the property at a price offered by the vendor and for the purpose of showing the terms of purchase to the authority under Section 35 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by the trust with the vendors on 18.5.2012. The terms of the MoU would be effect within 60 days only after the permission of Charity Commissioner is obtained and sale would be executed within 30 days after getting the permission from the Charity Commissioner. After considering the all the relevant circumstances at that point of time, as per the requirement of Section 35, the petitioner entered into MoU. Therefore, the petitioner applied on 19.6.2012 applied before the respondent for permission under Section 35 of the Act, along with necessary documents. The respondent without considering facts and circumstances of the petitioner trust, straightway rejected the application on the ground that the MoU entered into by the Trust without the permission of the Charity Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 5.7.2012 passed in Application No.35/02/2012 by way of present petition.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Vyas for the respondent submits that the order passed by the respondent Authority is just and proper and there is no interference is required to be called by this Court. He further submits that the respondent Authority has considered all the aspects of the facts and therefore, it is not necessary to reconsider the same.