*1* wp.8835.10.910.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8835 OF 2010 Bhaurao Jayram Hinge and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Shriram Sansthan Vajirkhede and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.M.M.Sathaye, for the Petitioners. Mr.Jayesh B. Kocheta, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.N.R.Bubna, for the Respondent Nos.4 to 12. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik on 09.08.2010 dismissing an application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 2 It is the case of the Petitioners that the application was filed by the Trust i.e. Respondent No.1. The present trustees are the Respondent Nos.1(A) and 1(J) whereas the Respondent No.2 is objecting trustee and the Respondent Nos.4 to 12 are objecting villagers. 3 After giving description of the immovable property belonging to the Trust, it is stated that the application was made for seeking sanction to the sale of the Trust’s property. The Petitioners state that they participated as conglomerate and paid Rs.6 lacs by a Demand Draft to the Respondent No.1/Trust. The amount was paid as early on 30.04.2003 and the offer was made for purchase of the Trust’s property for Rs.38 lacs. The application was made for sale of the Trust’s property, but the matter *2* wp.8835.10.910.sxw remained pending for a long time. The Petitioners, therefore, sought intervention of the Joint Charity Commissioner and made an application in that behalf. This application was opposed and finally by the impugned order, the main application itself came to be rejected. The main application having been rejected and although there was no objection to the intervention of the Petitioners, that this Writ Petition has been filed. 4 I have heard Mr.Sathaye, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr.Kocheta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1/Trust, so also, Mr.Bubna, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.4 to 12. With their assistance, I have perused the petition and annexures thereto, so also, the impugned order. 5 Upon perusal of the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the Joint Charity Commissioner did not commit any error in dismissing the application which is pending from the year 2003. The Joint Charity Commissioner has observed that due to the technical obstacles, the application praying for sanction of sale of the Trust’s property remained pending. In the year 2010, the prices have increased and therefore, it will not be proper to consider the application considering the date on which it was made and the offers received on that basis. Such an order does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction because no error apparent on the face of record or perversity is disclosed. There is no basis for the contention that merely because the application was pending for a long time, that it was dismissed. The Joint Charity Commissioner has assigned the reasons as to why the matter cannot be considered by him. The Writ Petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 6 However, on the last occasion, I took a serious note of the grievance of the Petitioners that a sum of Rs.6 lacs which has been paid to the Respondent No.1/Trust is retained by the Trust and not refunded for *3* wp.8835.10.910.sxw all these years. Further, even during the course of the proceedings, no offer was made for refund thereof. I had orally directed Mr.Kocheta to take instructions as to whether, this amount can be refunded to the Petitioners with interest at such rate as will be stipulated by this Court. The order to that effect was passed on 02.08.2011. 7 Today, when the matter was placed, Mr.Kocheta makes a statement that the Respondent No.1/Trust does not have enough fund to make arrangement and refund the amount immediately. The Trust will have to obtain the loan from the Bank. He states that the Bank of Maharashtra is ready and willing to advance the loan, but for all formalities to be completed and the amount to be refunded, six months’ time is required. Further, this Court should not stipulate the interest at more than 6% considering the financial position of the Trust. 8 Mr.Sathaye states that the period of six months is too long and the money has been retained for past more than eight years. There is no explanation for the delay in refunding the amount. Therefore, six months’ time may not be granted. 9 After hearing both sides and perusing with their assistance, the entire record, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the amount of Rs.6 lacs is directed to be refunded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with interest at 8% per annum from the year 2004 till the date of refund. This order is passed in the light of the statements made above and naturally this being the direction of this Court, if there is any violation or breach thereof, in addition to legal proceedings being initiated, the Petitioners would be free to initiate the contempt proceedings against the Trust and the Trustees. It is clarified that the amount will be refunded by drawing a cheque in the name of the Petitioner No.1 and the Petitioner No.1 shall *4* wp.8835.10.910.sxw accept it on behalf of all members of the consortium/group. Other members of this group will not be permitted to make any independent claim against the Trust for refund of this amount with interest as directed above and a single cheque shall be towards full and final settlement of the entire group. It is for the Petitioners to adjust the said amount towards their liabilities. This order is passed in presence of the Respondent No. 1(A) who is the Chairman of the Respondent No.1/Trust. 10 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)