1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDNARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 441 OF 2009 Mr. Walter Thomas Kinny and others .. Petitioners Versus M/s Catherine Quinny Trust & and others .. Respondents Shri O.B. Molankar, i/b Ms. Archana Khan for the petitioner Shri Clive Clive D souza for Respondent No.1, ’ Ms. Naseem Patrawala i/by P. Mehta & Mithi & Co. for respondent No.2 Shri N.P. Pandit, AGP for Respondents 3 to 5 CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 27th November, 2009. P. C. 1. Grievance of the petitioners is that on 13.12.2004, the third respondent-Charity Commissioner, Mumbai has granted permission under Section 36(1) (a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 to the first respondent-Trust to sale the property involved in this petition to the second respondent. The sale has been effected on 27th May, 2005. According to the petitioners, the sale is fraudulent. The correct facts were not pointed out to the Charity Commissioner, and therefore the Charity Commissioner has granted the permission to sale the property. 2 2. Learned for the second respondent contended that the sale is confirmed as far back as in 2005. He submitted that therefore, belated petition of this nature may not be entertained by this Court. 3. Under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the Charity Commissioner may revoke the sanction given under clause (a) or (b)to sub section (1) of section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, on the ground that such sanction was obtained by fraud or misappropriation made to him or by concealing facts material for the purpose of giving sanction. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the Charity Commissioner praying for revocation of the sanction. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will file application under Section 36(2) before the Charity Commissioner. He therefore seeks permission to withdraw the petition. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. The petitioners may, if they so desire, file application under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act before the Charity Commissioner. 4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. As to whether such application can be entertained after a considerable delay and as to whether the sanction can be 3 revoked after the sale is confirmed are the matters which the Charity Commissioner shall decide independently and in accordance with law, after hearing the concerned parties. 5. Needless to say that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Charity Commissioner, they will be at liberty to adopt such remedy as may be available to them in law. 6. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (RANJANA DESAI, J.) jpc/-