IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 4131 OF 2008. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2008. Wakeshwar And Vitthal Devasthan Trust ..Petitioner. Pashan. Vs. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region Pune & Anr ..Respondents. Mr S. V. Pitre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr S. D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 22nd January,2009. DATED: 22nd January,2009. DATED: 22nd January,2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner-trust entered into an agreement of development with M/s Mantri Builders somewhere on 25.3.1988. Thereafter, from time to time, extensions were being obtained. As many as five extensions were obtained from time to time ranging from three to four years. The last application made with the Joint Charity Commissioner for extension was rejected by an order dated 28.12.2007. Thereafter, the present petition was filed by the petitioners in the year 2003 since then this petition is pending. Now, in 2009 this petition is brought before the Court for admission. The Charity Commissioner by impugned order refused to grant extension for the following reasons. "The record reveals that since inception the matter was adjourned for want of steps, but in vain. None appeared in this matter. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the Applicants have suppressed the material fact. The sanction that was accorded was dated 19.7.1989 and the time was extended from time totime in the years 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999 and till 2003 in Misc. Application No. 40/2002. When said purchaser as well as seller could not complete transaction, then it is unjust to consider such application. Moreover, it is surprising to note that the said purchaser may be with the active connivance of the Trust assigned the right of M/s Lodha Rane and Associates, but that assignment itself is illegal. No permission of this Authority was sought and therefore, when the purchaser substituted by the prospective purchaser and the seller, then this Authority cannot act as a rubber stamp, so as to endorse the surreptitious dealing in between the Trustee and the prospective purchaser. If really the concerned M/s Lodha Rane and Associates are eager to purchase the property and the Trust is also eager to sell the property, then the Trust has to start the denovo procedure. One cannot ignore that the prices of the property from Pashan now has reached to the pinnacle and by afresh proposal the Trust will receive the amount by 10 times more than agreed and that will be beneficial to the Trust. So when such is the fact then the surreptitious dealing interse in between the Trustee and the concerned must be curbed by rejecting such application. On such application, the order cannot be modified. Substitution of purchaser will amount to giving premium to the illegalities as well as surreptitious dealing and, therefore, such tendency must be curbed not only by rejecting the application, but by saddling the exemplary cost on the applicant i.e. on the person, who has moved the application and it must be recovered from the said person." 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having seen the impugned order no case is made out to interfere with the said order. The view taken by the Joint Charity Commissioner is a reasonable and possible view. No perversity or the arbitrariness could be pointed out by the Petitioner in the impugned order. Document of assignment sought to be produced on record does not reveal figure of consideration in the agreement dated 3.1.1997. Under these circumstances, one has to conclude that the entire scenario has not been disclosed either to the Joint Charity Commissioner and/or to this Court. The petition is liable to be dismissed being without any merit. 3. In the result, the petition is dismissed in limini. No order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)