WP 6158 of 10 1 SSK/16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6158 OF 2010 Darshan Group & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Y. M. Chaudhari i/b. Ms.Reena Salunkhe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V. A. Thorat, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. V. P. Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Tamhane i/b. M/s. Tamhane & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.14. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 9th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard, Mr. Dhakephalkar and Mr.Thorat, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.3 respectively, Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. Tamhane, learned Counsel for Respondent No.14. 2. The Respondent No.3-Trust is the owner of the property bearing C.S. No.24A/306 and New Survey No.1/3392 and 2/3392 situated at 26, Sir Ratan Tata Road, Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 admeasuring 599.923 sq. WP 6158 of 10 2 SSK/16 meters (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called at the said property). The Respondent No.3 decided to sell the development rights attached to the said property and accordingly, a resolution to that effect was passed. After obtaining valuation of the said property, public notice was given in Free Press Journal and Navshakti inviting offers from interested developers. Pursuant to the said public notice, nine offers were received. The Respondent No.14 was the highest bidder. The Respondent No.3 decided to finalise the deal with Respondent No.14 for total consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- plus an area of 3500 sq.ft. and passed resolution to that effect accordingly. 3. The Respondent No.3 thereafter preferred an application under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to the Charity Commissioner for sanction. The said application is pending. The application is opposed by the Petitioners. It is the case of the Petitioners that though their initial offer was of Rs.50,00,000/- plus Rs.3000 sq.ft. area to the Respondent No.3, they have not been given any opportunity to increase this offer. This contention of the Petitioners is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3. The Petitioners by making an application at Exhibit “16” before the Charity Commissioner showed their willingness to enhance their offer over and above the offer of Respondent No.14 and requested for open bidding. This application was rejected by the WP 6158 of 10 3 SSK/16 Charity Commissioner and therefore, the present petition. 4. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel, during the course of argument submitted that the Respondent No.14 has increased the offer to Rs.1,55,00,000/- alongwith area of 4,100 sq.ft to the Respondent No.3 and his client is also ready and willing to increase his offer to Rs.2,00,00,000/- alongwith equivalent area offered by the Respondent No.14. Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.3 doubts bonafide of the Petitioners on the ground that though the Petitioners earlier had an opportunity, they did not increase their offer and Petitioners intends to prolong the matter. He further submits that the tenants of the property are also not willing to allow the Petitioners to develop the said property. 6. The relevant factors required to be considered under section 36(1)(a) of the B.P.T.Act, 1950 are whether there is a need to sell the trust property, whether the transaction in question is in the interest of the trust and its beneficiary, and whether the Trust is getting best possible price? So far as the need to sale the property is concerned, there is no dispute among the parties. The question for consideration is whether the Trust is getting best available price for the said property. If the Petitioners are offering Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the said property plus an area of 4100 sq. ft. to the Respondent No.3, then, in my view, there is no reason, not to WP 6158 of 10 4 SSK/16 consider the same. The application under section 36(1)(a) of the B.P.T.Act is still pending before the Charity Commissioner and final order is not passed so far. In these facts and circumstances, I deem it fit to dispose of the petition by passing the following order : 1. The Charity Commissioner while disposing Respondent No.3’s application under section 36(1)(a) of the B.P.T.Act, 1950 shall give due consideration to the Petitioners’ offer of Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the said property alongwith equivalent area as offered by Respondent No.14. Needless to mention, the Petitioners’ offer will be considered independently on its own merits and ignoring the observations made in the impugned order. 2. It is made clear that the Charity Commissioner while disposing Respondent No.3’s application shall also consider other relevant factors. The offerers including Respondent No.14 are also a liberty to enhance their offer. (R. V. MORE, J.)