1 LPA210/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.210 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9440 OF 2010 Mahesh D. Chande and others ...Appellants v/s Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai and ors. ...Respondents Mr R.V. Govilkar for Appellants. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011. 2 LPA210/11 P.C. :- 1] The present appellants were petitioners in writ petition No.9440 of 2010. That petition was filed on 30th November 2010 challenging the order passed by the Charity Commissioner under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 granting sanction for transfer of land belonging to a public Trust. That petition was thereafter amended and a prayer was added for setting aside the deed of conveyance executed in favour of the purchases by the Trustees dated 24th May 2010 pursuant to the sanction. The learned Single Judge has noted that offers were invited by the Trust by issuing public notice. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the valuation reports. The learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioners had filed writ petition challenging the order passed under section 36 of the said Act merely six months after execution of the conveyance. The learned Single Judge also found that two of the petitioners filed an application under section 2(36) of the said Act for 3 LPA210/11 revocation of the sanction order. The learned Single Judge also found that the petitioners had attended the meeting on 8th August 2010 and a meeting held on 2nd October 2010 when negotiations by the tenants were carried on with the purchasers. The learned Single Judge has found that the petitioners have suppressed these facts. The learned counsel appearing or appellants submits that mere non-disclosure of the facts that the petitioners attended the meetings on 8th august 2010 and 2nd October 2010 is not correct because that circumstance by itself was not relevant. 2] The learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that the Charity Commissioner had made the sanction order with undue haste and therefore, the learned Single Judge should have appreciated the matter from that point of view. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and after having gone through the record of the matter, we find that the learned Single Judge has given detailed and cogent reasons for rejecting 4 LPA210/11 the petition filed by the petitioners. The two of the petitioners are members of the Trust and other petitioners are tenants. It appears that they have all attended the meetings called by the purchasers for considering the proposal for redevelopment of the property and rehabilitation of the tenants. That meeting was held on 8th August 2010. It is obvious that at least on 8th August 2010, the petitioners were aware of the sale of the property. Therefore, when they filed the petition on 30th November 2010, they were under a duty to disclose to the Court that they became aware of the order in August 2010 and that they have attended the meeting called by the purchases and they had to inform the Court whey they did not approach the Court from August 2010 to November 2010. In our view, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. There is no substance in the appeal. Appeal is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private 5 LPA210/11 Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )