SADODAY BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD Vs. JT CHARITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the two orders passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. By the first order dated 3/8/2009, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has rejected the objections raised by the petitioners herein in respect of the proposed sale of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in favour of the respondent no.3 and by the second order dated 12/7/2010, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has disposed of the application filed by the respondent no.2 Trust by observing that for sale of TDR which is moveable property the permission of the Charity Commissioner is not required under Section 36(1)(c) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [for brevity sake referred to as the said Act].

(3.) The factual matrix involved in the above petition can be stated thus The petitioners herein were the participants in the sale of TDR, which was advertised by the respondent no.2 Trust. The said TDR was to the extent of 2285.35 sq. meters and the advertisement for the same was issued on 6/5/2006. The offers which were to be received pursuant to the said advertisement were to be opened on 15/5/2006. It is the case of the petitioners that when they visited the office of the respondent Trust on the day of opening, they were informed that on account of the Bishop not being available, the opening of the offer was postponed. It is further the case of the petitioners that thereafter they acquired knowledge that the sale of the said TDR would be effected in favour of some party which resulted in the petitioners addressing letters to the respondent no.2 Trust, which are annexed to the above petition. It is the case of the petitioners that no response was received to the said letters addressed by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they also made a complaint to the Joint Charity Commissioner vide letter dated 16/6/2007. The petitioners ultimately were constrained to file their objections on 26/9/2008 as regards the proposed sale of TDR in favour of respondent no.3 herein. The gist of the objections filed by the petitioners were to the effect that the petitioners were ready to offer a higher amount per square meter than offered by the respondent no.3 herein. The objection was also as regards the fact that the whole process was sought to be carried out behind the back of the petitioners. The said objections of the petitioners were considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner and by the first impugned order dated 3/8/2009, the said objections of the petitioners came to be rejected inter alia on the grounds that the same were filed belatedly, the offer of the respondent no.3 was higher than that had made by the petitioners and that the petitioners had not deposited any amount to show their bona fides.