Shri Nanasaheb Kore Charitable Trust through Trustee – Shri Chitrasen N. Gulwe v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur.

Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, for the Petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for the Respondent. CORAM: G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2012. P.C:- 1 2 Heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 3 The Petitioner-trust had filed Application No.11 of 2009 which was dismissed by the Jt. Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur on 14th January, 2010. Various discrepancies were noted in the process of issuing tenders and hence, the application was rejected. This order has been accepted by the Trust. 4 Thereafter, the trust issued fresh advertisement in the two newspapers and filed another Application under Section 36 being - 2 - 17-wp-11116-2011 Application No.43 of 2010. In this application, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur passed the following order:- Heard, Perused the application. Public notice is hereby “ ordered to be sent to offices of Times of India and Sakal for publication. Tenders from the prospective purchasers be called within 30 days of the publication of public notice. 30% of the offer price by way of crossed D.D. along with the offer tender should be deposited. Tenders will be opened in presence of all the Tenderers. Aplt to submit the draft public notice.” 5 Accordingly, fresh advertisements were published by the Superintendent from the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner in daily Sakal and daily Times of India. Even in response to this advertisement, only three bids were received. The highest bid of Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. was Rs. 77,00,000/-. Thereafter, in bidding before the Joint Charity Commissioner, the bid was increased to Rs.83,00,000/-. 6 Despite this, by order dated 23rd February, 2011, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune in-charge Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur dismissed the application. 7 Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5078 of 2011 in this Court. The learned Single Judge (Coram: S. C. Dharmadhikari J.) passed the following order:- “1 Heard both sides. Perused the impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune who is incharge Joint Charity Commissioner of Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur. By the - 3 - 17-wp-11116-2011 impugned order dated 23.02.2011 the Petitioner Trust’s application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 seeking sanction for sale of its property which is situated on the outskirts of Paragaon, Taluka : Hatkanangale, District : Kolhapur, has been rejected. The land admeasures 102 acres and is in Hatkanangale Taluka. The Joint Charity Commissioner found some substance in the application to the extent that the sale is in the interest of the Trust, but proceeded to reject the application on the ground that the price offered is not adequate. While it is true that the bidders are not before this Court, 2 but the Trust complains that the offer was given by the highest bidder in two successive rounds. This is the second time that the application is made seeking sanction for sale of the property. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that if there was any doubt about the price offered by the bidders and if the Joint Charity Commissioner was of the opinion that there is much difference between the prices offered and actual market price, then, he should have called for specific information from the office of the Sub Registrar within the vicinity or from the Special Land Acquisition Officer/ Deputy Collector of the district. He should have looked at reports of the said authorities, which reports would have assisted him and the same ought to be placed before the bidders to inquire as to whether there is possibility of the bids being further revised. This course was not adopted by the Joint Charity Commissioner and he straightway rejected the application, which conclusion in the given facts and circumstances, is not sustainable. 3 In the light of the fact that the application has been rejected without finding as to whether, the price offered is adequate or not in the aforesaid terms, the order dated 23.02.2011 is quashed and set aside. The application preferred by the Petitioner bearing No.42/2010 will now be reheard by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur in the above terms and he should consider the request for sanction of sale of the Trust’s property as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.” 8 Thereafter, by impugned Order dated 30th August,2011 the - 4 - 17-wp-11116-2011 application is again dismissed. 9 Mr. Patwardhan has pointed out that the impugned Order proceeds on a factually incorrect basis that in the PTR extracts of the trust, only 48 properties are recorded instead of 53 lands. He pointed out that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not perused the PTR extracts properly. Mr. Patwardhan has also brought to my notice that the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2011 was set aside by this Court earlier. 10 In so far as the price offered for the properties concerned, even after the advertisements were issued in the reputed newspapers by the Superintendent from the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner and even when the bidders were permitted to enhance their bids before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Rs.83,00,000/- is the highest bid which has been received. There is no elaborate discussion in the impugned Judgment and Order as to whether this bid is less than the valuation report submitted by the Sub-Registrar. According to Mr. Patwardhan, in the valuation report of the Sub-Registrar, value of land is shown as Rs.45.50 lakhs only whereas the highest offer is of Rs.83,00,000/-. This aspect does not appear to have been taken into consideration by Joint Charity Commissioner. - 5 - 17-wp-11116-2011 11 One of the reasons given by the Joint Charity Commissioner is that the Petitioner has not filed any project report nor has the Petitioner justified as to why the entire land was required to be alienated when the construction of old age home along with cost of the land was likely to cost Rs.49,00,000/- or thereabout. Mr. Patwardhan states that the entire land is barren and completely uncultivable and that was the reason why the entire land was proposed to be sold. This aspect will have to be stated on oath before the Joint Charity Commissioner along with the opinion of the expert like Agricultural Officer to state that the entire land is barren and uncultivable. The Trust is also required to file the estimate of the project cost and project report before the Joint Charity Commissioner which exercise has not been done. 12 The price which is offered has been offered after the complete transparent exercise of issuing advertisement even by the Joint Charity Commissioner and it is therefore difficult to hold that the price which is offered is not adequate. However, in so far as the need for alienation is concerned the Trust will have to first satisfy the Joint Charity Commissioner, as stated above, by filing report of expert as also the estimate of the proposed construction of old age home etc. 13 I, therefore, deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order and remand back the matter for a fresh enquiry to - 6 - 17-wp-11116-2011 the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur. Hence, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30th August, 2011 is quashed and set aside and the proceedings are remanded back for a fresh enquiry. 14 The Petitioner is granted liberty to file additional document in the form of report and is also granted liberty to file additional Affidavit to justify as to why the Petitioner does not wish to retain the entire land even though the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is required for the new project. 15 The enquiry before the Joint Charity Commissioner shall be conducted expeditiously and the proceeding shall be decided on or before 31st July, 2012. 16 Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)