srk １ app-820-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 820 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1124 OF 2010 Mukhtiyar Noormohmad Vohra ... Appellant Versus Joint Charity Commissioner and others. ... Respondents Mr.J.J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rasesh Parikh, Mr. Hemang Parikh and Mr. Prakash Shah i/by M/s. PDS Associates for the appellant. Mr. C.S. Kapadia with Mr. Shaukat Merchant, Mr. Dhaval Kenia and Mr. Nikhil Dharod i/by M/s. M & M Legal Ventures for respondent No.2. Mr.D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Karim for respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Tuesday, August 24, 2010 P .C. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th June, 2010 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1124 of 2010 by which the learned Single Judge turned down the petitioner's challenge to the order of the Charity Commissioner, Bombay of sanctioning the sale of the properties of respondent No.2-Trust which order was passed after following the required procedure of inviting and accepting bids. 2. The appellant-petitioner is the unsuccessful bidder. Respondent No.3 is the successful bidder. The appellant challenged the order of the learned Charity Commissioner, Mumbai on the ground that Charity Commissioner had no territorial jurisdiction to sanction the sale of the properties of the trust which are situate in Gujarat. srk ２ app-820-10 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge held that since the respondent No.2 trust is registered with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai and its principal office is in State of Maharashtra, the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra will have jurisdiction for all the properties of the trust including the properties which are situate in State of Maharashtra as well as the trusts which are situate in another State or States where the other trust properties are situate. 4. The learned Single Judge also took a view that there cannot be the two offices of the Charity Commissioner exercising jurisdiction over one trust merely because the properties are in more than one State. Upon the registration of the trust, the Charity Commissioner in the State where the trust is registered shall exercise jurisdiction over all the properties of the trust whether they are within or outside that State. The aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that because the properties are situate in Gujarat, only the Charity Commissioner of Gujarat should have exercised the jurisdiction and could have passed the order sanctioning sale of the properties situated in the State of Gujarat. In support of the of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Nautam Prakash DGSVC, Vadtal and others vi. K.K. Thakkar and others, 2006(5) SCC 330. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 has opposed the appeal and stated that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in various other decisions, particularly in srk ３ app-820-10 Anant Prasad Lakshminivas Ganeriwal v. State of A.P., AIR 1963 SC, 853, State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi, AIR 1959 SC 1002, Charity Commissioner v. Administrator of the Shringeri Math and its Properties, AIR 1969 SC 566, the Charity Commissioner of the State where trust is situate will have jurisdiction to pass such orders, even though any part of the trust property, whether large or small, is situate outside the State where the trust is situate. 7. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340. the Apex Court has reviewed the case law on the subject and has held that the Charity Commissioner would have no jurisdiction in relation to the administration of the entire trust as the office of the trust is situate outside the State. In the facts of that case, the office of the trust was situate within the State of Gujarat and the property in question was also situate in the State of Gujarat. In this factual backdrop, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mumbai could not have issued any direction in respect of the properties of the trust which were situate within the State of Gujarat. 8. The controversy in that case was about interpretation of the provisions of clause 4 of the Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional Reorganisation) Order, 1960. The learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon clause 4(c) of that order which reads as under: "4(c) The trust property is situate in the Maharashtra region and the office for the administration of the Trust is situate in the Gujarat region or vice versa, then the Trust shall be deemed to be so registered on that day without further inquiry, charge or fee in each of the two regions." 9. Relying upon the above clause, the learned counsel for the srk ４ app-820-10 appellant submitted that in view of the above deeming provision, the respondent-trust shall be deemed to be registered in each of the two States viz. Maharashtra and Gujarat and that since the property in question is situate within the State of Gujarat, the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra has no jurisdiction. 10. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 trust states that although respondent No.2 trust was registered in the year 1946, the question of applying the above clause does not arise as far as the property in the State of Gujarat is concerned because that property is purchased in the year 1995. 11. Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional Reorganisation) Order, 1960 was applicable to only those cases where office of the trust was situate either in the Maharashtra Region or in Gujarat Region but the properties of the trust were situate in the other States as well. It was in that context that the question was to be determined as to whether the Charity Commissioner in one region would have the jurisdiction over the property situate in the other State. The observations made by the Apex Court in that context cannot be relied upon in support of the appellant's case that the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State will have jurisdiction over the properties situate in Gujarat. The Apex Court itself noted in paras 25 and 26 of the judgment that in view of the decisions in AIR 1959 SC 1002 and AIR 1969 SC 566 where the trust is situate in a particular State, the law of that State will apply even though any part of the trust property, whether large or small is situate outside the State where the trust is situate. It is the situs of the principal math which was held to determine the applicability of the Act. It therefore, necessarily means that since the respondent No.2 trust is registered with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai alone had jurisdiction to pass an order sanctioning sale of the trust property. srk ５ app-820-10 12. We, therefore, see no merit in the appeal. Appeal is summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.