: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3859 OF 2008 Sheth Shapurji Sorabji Kappawal Charitable Trust ... Petitioner V/s. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.G.S. Godbole a/w Ms.Manjiri Parasnis for Petitioner Mrs.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent No.1 Mr.P.S. Dani for Resp. No.2 Ms.Uma Wagle for Resp. No.3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 2nd JULY, 2009 P. C.: 1. The Petition has been filed by a Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Petitioner Trust is maintaining an Agiary in the property where Parsis, Iranis, Zoroastrians offer their prayers. There is an annexe building in the precincts of the Agiary consisting of ground plus first floor. According to the Trust, this structure i.e. the annexe building, is dilapidated and is required to be demolished in view of the imminent danger of it collapsing. The report of a structural engineer, one Deepak D. Kulkarni was relied on by the Petitioner and he suggested that as the life of this structure was over and in view of the age and the recurring nature of the maintainance problems it was necessary to demolish the structure. Thereafter an application was made u/s 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act for alienation of the immovable property of the public trust. It appears that bids were called for redevelopment of the property and Respondent No.5 was found to be the successful bidder. Objections were raised for the redevelopment of this property and they have : 2 : been considered by the Charity Commissioner. 2. The main contention of the objectors was that there was no need to demolish the structure of the annexe building and to redevelop the same. They relied on the reports from two other architects who opined that there was no need for the demolition of the structure. Both these architects have opined that although structural repairs would be necessary, the necessity for demolition of the structure is unfounded. 3. The Charity Commissioner after considering the three reports of the architects and the objections raised has held that no case is made out to establish that the property, that is the annexe building, is in a seriously dilapidated condition and that there is extreme urgency to demolish the same. The Charity Commissioner has, therefore, held that there is no compelling necessity to alienate the trust property and has rejected the application filed u/s 36 of the Act. While doing so, the Charity Commissioner has accepted the opinion of the two architects namely Nitin Doshi and K.R. Trivedi. He has found that both these architects are more qualified and more experienced as compared to Shri Kulkarni who had recommended the demolition of the structure. The architects have found that after necessary repairs to the structure there would be no need to demolish the same. 4. I do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. The Joint Charity Commissioner has passed a detailed order and the reasons for accepting the reports of the two architects Doshi and Trivedi are cogent. There is no perversity in the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner requiring this Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order cannot be set aside only because a different view is possible. Apart from this, respondent No.4 who appears in person points out that the Agiary has been accorded a heritage II A status in 2008. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no need to interfere. 5. Petition rejected.