1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7154/2010 Shri Murlidhar Mandir Devasthan Trust, Pundi, Tq. Ashti District Beed. Through its President, Chdnarakant Shrirang Deshpande Age 61 years, Occ-Agril R/o Pundi, Tq. Ashti Dist. Beed. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur Tq. and Dist.Latur. 2] Shaikh Yakub Shaikh Meheboob 3] Shaikh Bhural Shaikh Maheboob 4] Mahadev Kisan Sumbre 5] Vishnu Kisan Sumbre 6] Ravindra Kisan Sumbre All Age Major, Occ-Agril 2 R/o Sarate Wadgaon, Tq.Ashti Dist.Beed. 7] Smt.Bhamabai Bhagwanrao Sangle Age Major, Occ-Agri. 8] Anil Soudu Galande Age 37 years, Occ-Agril 9] Shivaji Baburao Surwase Age 45 years, Occ-Agril Both R/o Pundi, Tq. Ashti Dist.Beed. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri P.M.Shinde,Adv.for petitioner. Shri K.B.Choudhari,AGP for Respondent no.1 State Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar,Adv. for respondents 2 to 6. Respondents 7 to 10 served. ... CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J. DATE :02/12/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, petition is heard finally. None appears for respondents 7 to 10, though served. 3 2] The Petition takes exception to the order dated 13/11/2009 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur, whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 36(C) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 to alienate the property in question, came to be rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-trust requires immediate funds to repair and renovate its temple which is 100-150 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and for that purpose, it was necessary to sell the trust property in question, which was in the interest of the trust, the temple and the devotees considering the aims and objects of the trust. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the observations in the impugned order at para 9, wherein the Joint Charity Commissioner has observed as follows : "9] .................No approved map and estimate of cost of proposed renovation of temple has been filed by applicant to prove the need of funds. Therefore, even otherwise the applicant cannot prove that trust is in need of money for renovation of temple or to fulfill the object of the trust. In the 4 circumstances the proposed alienation of trust property cannot be in the interest of the trust." 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact this observation is perverse inasmuch as the estimates of the approximate costs of repairs/renovation and designs, through their Architect and Engineer, was submitted to the Joint Charity Commissioner which the Joint Commissioner has glosssed over. 5] The learned AGP has produced the relevant file of the Joint Charity Commissioner as directed by this Court's order dated 25/11/2010. On perusal of the said file, it is noticed that there is in fact an abstract sheet showing the total estimate of cost of renovation of the temple which has been submitted and is on record of the Joint Charity Commissioner which has been completely overlooked by the Joint Charity Commissioner and therefore, the observations as mentioned hereinabove, by Joint Charity Commissioner in the impugned order are clearly perverse. 6] In this view of the matter, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Joint Charity Commissioner 5 for consideration afresh. The Joint Charity Commissioner shall decide the issue afresh, after hearing all the concerned parties. It will be open for any parties to submit any further documents and evidence in support of their contentions, which will be considered by Joint Charity Commissioner before passing any order. The Joint Charity Commissioner shall decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from today. All contentions are kept open. 7] Though the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 submitted that the respondents 2 to 6 are in fact the owners of part of the suit property which is being sought to be sold and they are claiming ownership on the basis of protected tenancy from 1950 under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, I refrain from expressing any opinion in that regard. 8] In the result, the impugned order is set aside and rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. [A.A.SAYED] JUDGE umg/wp7154-10