1 SSK/27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10424 OF 2009 Utkarsh Samittee, Nashik Division, Nashik ....Petitioner Versus The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Surel Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Surel Shah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Patne, learned AGP for the Respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 20th November, 2009 passed by the Respondent No.1-Joint Charity Commissioner, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for extension of time to complete the transaction. 2 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The Petitioner-Trust applied to Respondent No.1 under the provisions of section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for sanction to transfer/sell the leasehold rights in the trust property bearing Plot No.B-12, NICE area, M.I.D.C., Industrial Area, Satpur, Nashik (Sub- Lessee) in favour of M/s.Ashwin Trading Co., Satpur, Nashik. The Respondent No.1-Joint Charity Commissioner by his order dated 27th May, 2009 granted sanction to the Petitioner to transfer/sell the leasehold rights in the above property in favour of M/s.Ashwin Trading Co., Satpur, Nashik in terms of the agreement dated 27th July, 2007. It was further directed that the transaction should be completed within a period of three months from the date of the order. 5. The Petitioner’s case is that in order to enable it to complete the transaction of transfer/sell, prior written consent of Nashik Industrial Co- operative Estate Limited, Satpur, Nashik is necessary as the said property is situated in the industrial area. This fact is not controverted by the Respondents and infact reference is made to this fact in the order dated 27th May, 2009. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation has now, however, granted written consent to the Petitioner on 17th November, 2009, subject to extension of time by the Respondent No.1-Joint Charity 3 Commissioner. In the above circumstances, the Petitioner filed an application on 18th August, 2009 before the Respondent No.1 for extension of time to complete the transaction. This application was rejected by the order impugned in the petition. 6. The extension of time to complete the transaction is rejected by the Respondent No.1-Joint Charity Commissioner on two grounds viz. firstly, the application is not made within a period of three months stipulated in the order dated 27th May, 2009 granting sanction under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and secondly, no reasons are given for grant of extension. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I find both the grounds are non-est. 7. The Petitioner made an application for extension, firstly on 18th August, 2009 and subsequently on 7th October, 2009. The Respondent No.1-Joint Charity Commissioner, however, did not take into consideration the earlier application made within the prescribed time of three months. So far as the second ground is concerned, I have perused the application for extension of time. The perusal reveals that the Petitioner has given reason for extension of time for completing the transaction viz. a written consent could not be obtained within a stipulated time from Nashik Industrial Co- operative Estate Limited, Satpur, Nashik. Thus, the second ground to 4 support the impugned order is also not maintainable. I find that the Petitioner has made out case for extension of time to complete the transaction and therefore, the Petitioner’s application for the said purpose ought to have been allowed by Respondent No.1-Joint Charity Commissioner. In the facts and circumstances, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order : 1. The impugned order dated 20th November, 2009 passed by the Respondent No.1-Joint Charity Commissioner in Petitioner’s application for extension of time to complete the transaction in Misc.Application No.22 of 2009 is quashed and set-aside and the Petitioner’s application is allowed and the Petitioner is granted four weeks’ time from today to complete the transaction in pursuance of the order dated 27th May, 2009 in application no. 21 of 2008 under section 36(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.)