1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4071 OF 2007 Haroon Ali Mohamed Malkani .. Petitioner Versus Joint Charity Commissioner and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.A.Kapadia, Senior Counsel i/b. Mrs.Indu Prashant for petitioner Mr.S.B.Amin for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd February 2008 P.C. . The order under challenge is dated 13th June 2006, a copy of which is at Exh.A and Mr.Kapadia, learned Senior Counsel challenges that part of the order in particular wherein Joint Charity Commissioner has, during the course of allowing an application by respondent No.3 Trust seeking extension, observed that the extension is sought after 10 to 11 years of the 2 order of sanction. The observations are made with regard to the conduct of the petitioner. 2. The Joint Charity Commissioner had before him Application No.J-4/Misc./6/05 and Application No.J-4/Misc./16/05. Both applications were filed by respondent No.3 seeking extension of time to comply with the order dated 13th June 1995 which was passed upon an application made under section 36(1)(a) of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The sanction was sought for sale of the Trust’s property and that is how the Charity Commissioner accorded sanction by imposing certain conditions. The Trustees applied for extension of time. By that time, the petitioner purchaser had complied with the terms and conditions, according to him, including that of tendering the entire purchase price. The tenor of the order, according to Mr.Kapadia, learned Senior Counsel is that the purchaser would not get the necessary permission/sanction from the Urban Land and 3 Ceiling Authorities and that is why the application was rejected. He submits that before rejecting the application, the Charity Commissioner should have heard not just the Trust but the purchaser as well, as the purchaser has been unable to obtain a conveyance despite tendering purchase price. 2. He contends that the petitioner was not heard at all on the application, copy of which is annexed to the petition paperbook at page 41 to 44. Mr.Korde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 Trust does not dispute that the petitioner was not heard in the matter. He fairly concedes that the application was disposed of after hearing the representative of the Trust. 3. Without entering into any larger controversy with regard to the locus of the petitioner to be heard so also on the merits of the matter, in the peculiar facts of this case 4 and in the light of the statement of Mr.Kapadia that now the permission from the U.L.C. Authorities has also been obtained, it would be fair, just and proper to quash and set aside the impugned order and restore both applications to the file of Charity Commissioner for being decided afresh after hearing, not only the respondent No.3 Trust but the petitioner purchaser as well. 4. The Charity Commissioner should hear both sides and pass orders afresh without being influenced by any observations in the earlier order. All pleas of both sides on the said application are kept open. The Charity Commissioner to endeavour and dispose of this application expeditiously and if possible within a period of three months from the date of appearance of parties. Petition disposed of. No costs. 5 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)