:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4409 OF 2007 Feroz S.Malik and Anr. .. Petitioners. Vs. The Joint Charity Commissioner, M.S. & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.M.U.Pandey for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.B.Amin with M.R.S.Gobse and Sunita Maurya for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 13.6.2006 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, rejecting the applications bearing Nos.J-4/Misc./14 of 2003 and J-4/Misc/17 of 2006 filed by respondent-Trust. These applications were filed for seeking extension of the time to complete the sale transaction as per the order dated 17.7.2000 passed on the application No.J-4/1-2000 under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust, Act, 1960. It appears that the Charity Commissioner vide order dated 17th July, 2000 had granted sanction under section 36(1)(a) of the Act on :2: :2: :2: following conditions: i) The amount of sale proceeds shall be held has Trust’s corpus and kept intact for ever in the form of investments in Long Term Fixed Deposits in any Nationalised Bank, Schedules Bank or Co-operative Bank appropved by Government under section 35 of th Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 or in the Public Securities earning higher rate of interest and only the interest thereon may be spent on the objects of the Trust. ii) The sale shall be executed within a period of one year from the date of this order. iii) Application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 be made within a period of one month from the date of this sanction order if deemed necessary and a copy of the same be endorsed to the Charity Commissioner Maharashtra State, Mumbai for record. iv) Trustees shall abide by the provisions of all laws applicable to the sale. v) Half of the share of the proceed shall go to the Administrator of the Estate of F.E.Dinshaw who owns as tenants in common in equal shares. vi) All expenses of conveyance such as stamp duty and registration charges etc. shall be born by the Purchaser. vii) The Trustees should file a Change Report under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 after completion of the sale, with the Deputy Charity Commissioner Greater Bombay Region. Bombay to get the record amended because of change at property holding." 3. Admittedly, the petitioners were suppose to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ (‘NOC’ for short) under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 :3: :3: :3: before execution of a sale deed and get the sale deed executed within a period of one year from the date of the order, that is, on or before 17th July, 2000. Since NOC was not obtained by the petitioner the sale deed could not be executed within a period of one year from the date of the order. In view thereof it appears that the Joint Charity Commissioner by the impugned order has rejected the application filed by the Trust seeking extension of time to complete the transaction as per the order dated 17.7.2000. 4. Mr.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the impugned order which affects the rights of the petitioner, was passed without following the principal of natural justice. He further submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. He then submitted that the order impugned tentamounts to revocation of the sanction granted under section 36(1)(a) and/or amounts to withdrawal of the said sanction and in view thereof, as provided for under section 36(1)(a), such order cannot be passed unless a person in whose favour sanction has been made, is given reasonable opportunity to show cause why the sanction should not be revoked. He also invited my attention to the fact that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount :4: :4: :4: with the trust. Mr.Pandey did not urge any other contention. 5. Against backdrop of these facts and the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner I perused the impugned order so also other material placed before this court. It reveals from the record that the petitioner who was supposed to apply for seeking NOC under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 had not even applied for NOC till February, 2005 and as a result thereof the transaction which the parties were expected to complete within a period of one year was not completed. In view thereof the Joint Charity Commissioner has simply refused to grant further extension which in my opinion does not tentamount to revocation of sanction or even withdrawal of the sanction granted vide order dated 17th July, 2000. That apart the petitioners at no point of time either themselves or through the Trust had even approached the Charity Commissioner seeking extension of time to complete the transaction as per the order dated 17.7.2000. For a period of five years the petitioners kept quite and did not take any further steps in order to complete the transaction. Seeking sanction under section 36(1)(a) of the Act or seeking extention to complete the transaction as per the :5: :5: :5: order under this provision, in my opinion, is a matter between the Trust and the Charity Commissioner, and a person in whose favour the sanction is obtained has no role to play in this process. The notice to such person would be necessary only if Charity Commissioner intends to revoke the sanction. While considering the application of the Trust for seeking extension of time such person, in my opinion, is not necessary party. Keeping that in view and considering the scheme of section 36 of the Act, the Charity Commissioner was not under obligation to extend time merely because the trustees were consenting. The Charity Commissioner has rightly considered the interest, benefit and protection of the trust. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that the price of the property was fixed in July, 2000 and it has not been disputed that there is a large escalation of the prices of immovable properties during last few years. Considering the interest of the trust and its beneficiaries the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, in my opinion, was fully justified in rejecting the prayer made by the respondent-trust for extension of time. I find no fault with the impugned order warranting interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Dismissal of the writ petition, :6: :6: :6: however, shall not preclude the petitioners from participating in the process of sale of the Trust properties in future. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)