Vidya amin v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Jul 2012
- Bench
- R G KETKAR
Outcome
Allowed
Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty as prayed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 s. 36(1)(a)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. After arguing the petition for sometime, Mr. Singh seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to take out appropriate proceedings under section 3692) of the Act for revocation of the sanction accorded on 8th February, 2012. Writ Petition is allowed to be…
Judgment
Mr. Vikas K. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 26th July, 2012. P.C. Heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th February, 2012 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai in Application No. 40 of 2010 filed under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. By that order, the Charity Commissioner accorded sanction for sale of properties of Ratanshi Premji Charitable Trust bearing P.T.R. No. E/220 (Thane) situated at village Bhayendarpada, District Thane.
Operative part
After arguing the petition for sometime, Mr. Singh seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to take out appropriate proceedings under section 3692) of the Act for revocation of the sanction accorded on 8th February, 2012. Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty as prayed
for. 1 Of 2 WP5408_2012
It is expressly made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to take out proceedings under section 36(2) of the Act, if permissible in law and subject to all the objections that may be available to the respondents. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proceedings that are proposed to be taken by the petitioner. ( R.G. KETKAR, J ) 2 Of 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty as prayed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 — s. 36(1)(a).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 26 Jul 2012. The bench was R G KETKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.