1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1775 OF 20008 M/s.Rawassa Construction Engineers & Contractors through F.E.Khatri .. Petitioner Versus The Jt.Charity Commissioner M.S.Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mrs.Shabnam Shaikh for petitioner Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr.R.S.Godse with S.B.Amin for respondent No.2 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd April 2008 P.C. . Petitioners are the purchasers. Second respondent Trust has pointed out that an immovable property was offered for sale by advertisement in 1988 and petitioners offered to purchase the same. In such circumstances, accepting the offer an application seeking sanction of the Charity Commissioner was filed. 2 This is registered Trust and Bombay Public Trusts Act applies to the same and that is how application under section 36(1)(a) was made. On 19th July 1993, sanction was granted and property was sold for a consideration of Rs..4 lakhs, subject to certain terms and conditions, one of which was to obtain no objection certificate from Authorities under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 within one month. It is contended by the Trust that the petitioners took no steps and ultimately the sanction expired, although extensions were granted. Finally, time was extended and the last application in that behalf was filed in 2005 which has been rejected. 2. Mr.Godbole appearing for petitioners urges that if the Trust was not inclined to grant any extension of time so also was not interested in proceeding further, then, there is no reason why the Trust applied seeking extension. Further he invites my attention to the letters, copies of 3 which are annexed to this petition. He submits that at no stage, the Trust took a stand that it is opposing any extension or that it is not interested in finalising and completing the transaction. He invites my attention to a letter which has been addressed on 3rd January 2008 and a reply thereto from the Trust on January 21, 2008. He has also invited my attention to the earlier correspondence and contended that the Trust had in the application also evinced its interest of completing transaction. In such circumstances, without adverting to any of these letters, some of which may be subsequent to the order of the Charity Commissioner, the matter has been disposed of. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioners and the Trust and perused the impugned order so also the correspondence which is carried out after the order of the Charity Commissioner. By the letter addressed to the 4 petitioners on 20th November 2007, the General Manager of the Trust informed the petitioners that the order of the Charity Commissioner impugned in this petition, was also duly conveyed on 12th August 2006 and a reminder was sent on 26th March 2007. The time was extended by the Trust till 31st March 2008. My attention is also invited to the repeal of the ULC Act and the repealing Act which has been passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the order under challenge deserves to be quashed and set aside in the peculiar facts of this case. Since, I am not passing any orders in this petition, but remanding the matter back to the Joint Charity Commissioner, no prejudice will be caused to the Trust. It is for the Joint Charity Commissioner to take a decision on the request for extension and that would be taken without being influenced by the order remanding the matter back to him. All that is expected of him is to apply his mind 5 to all aspects of the matter and take into consideration the correspondence carried out till date. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. 4. The application which has been preferred by the Trust before the Charity Commissioner, viz., Application No.J-4/Misc/52/2005 shall stand restored to the file of the Charity Commissioner for disposal afresh in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations in the earlier order. The order dated 13th June 2006 is quashed and set aside with directions as above. Petition disposed of. Application which is restored be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)