1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2010 Sapna Umashankar Keer ....Petitioner Versus Shri Bhageshwar Mandir Public & Religious Charitable Trust Properties and Funds (Ratnagiri) & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Girish Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. Nana Yelkar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Mr. Tulpule for Respondent No.7. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent No.8. Mr. D. D. Madon, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Sheetal Paranjape, Mr. A. Diamandwala, Ms. Sheetal Angane i/b. Divya Shah & Associate for Respondent No.9. Mr. Chetan Kapadia for Respondent No.10. Ms. Rajani Iyer a/w. Mr. Anand Patil for Respondent Nos. 11 to 15. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : APRIL 6 , 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Narendra Walawalkar, the learned senior counsel for Respondent No.1, Ms. Rajani Iyer, learned senior counsel for 2 Respondent Nos. 11 to 15, Mr. Madon for Respondent No.9 and Mr. Tulpule for Respondent No.7. 2. The Petition takes exception to the order dated 1st April, 2010 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai below Exhibit 1 in Application filed by the Respondent No.1 under section 36 (1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Acts, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the said Act). 3. The Petitioner filed objection vide Exhibit 24 in Application filed by Respondent No.1 Trust under section 36(1)(a) of the said Act, for dismissal of the said application and in the alternative for permission to purchase the said property for a sum of Rs. 2 crores on as it where it basis. 4. It is admitted position that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 9 are allowed to intervene in the application of Respondent No.1 under section 36 (1)(a) of the said Act. 5. During the course of the hearing of Respondent No. 1’s Application under section 36 (1)(a) of the said Act before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, the Petitioner 3 prayed for open bidding. Willingness was also shown by the Petitioner to deposit the amount within eight days, in the event she succeeds in biddings. This prayer of the Petitioner was opposed by the Respondent Nos.1, 9 and 11 to 15. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, after hearing the parties passed the impugned order wherein it is observed that in given circumstances open bidding would not serve any purpose. He also observed that the objector namely the Petitioner has not come before him with concrete proposal and documents showing credentials, expertise, etc. However, at later part of the order, it is made clear that in order to protect the interest of the Trust, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, may ask the proposed purchaser or intervener in whose favour the order may be made, to enhance the offer. 6. Mr. Madon, Mrs. Iyer, Mr. Walawalkar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective Respondents submits that by the impugned order Petitioner’s prayer for open bidding is refused at that stage. However, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, while deciding the Respondent’s application under section 36 (1)(a) of the said Act will consider the offer of both the Respondent No.9 as well as the Petitioner. 4 7. Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that his grievance would not survive if the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, decides Respondent No. 1’s Application under section 36(1)(a) of the said Act taking into consideration Petitioner’s offer/intervention. However, he object observation of learned Joint Charity Commissioner in first part of impugned order that open bidding would not serve any purpose and submit the same may come in the way, in case, Petitioner willing to enhance her offer. As stated above, the learned counsel for respective Respondents have no objection if observations of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, in the first part of the impugned order construed to mean that the bidding are not allowed at the stage of passing impugned order, and if the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, after hearing both the side finds it proper to held open bidding, then he can do so. 8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Petition is disposed of by passing the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. The Joint Charity Commissioner, 5 Maharashtra State, Mumbai, shall decide the application of Respondent No.1 under section 36 (1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, which is annexed at page 27 of the Petition, on its own merit, ignoring the observation made in the first part of the impugned order, and having regards to the later part of the impugned order. ii. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, shall consider issue of open bidding after hearing the concerned parties before him, and giving an opportunity to the Petitioner and Respondent No.9 to give their credential, in accordance with law. iii. Looking into the nature of the matter, interest of justice would be subserved if the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, is directed to decide the application of Respondent No.1 under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, as expeditiously as possible and preferably by the end of 31st May, 2010. 6 iv. Parties are directed to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Shirestedar of this Court. (R. V. MORE, J.)