1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.5800 of 2009 Kolhapur Zilla Khadi & Gramodyog Sangh, Kolhapur & anr. ... .. Petitioners v/s. Shri Shekhar Bandappa Ghugare & ors. .. Respondents Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for Petitioners. Mr.Abhijeet Desai for Res.Nos.3 & 7. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 10th February, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule, returnable forthwith. 2.Petitioner No.2 is the Secretary, representing Petitioner No.1-Trust (Petitioner), which sought to sell the Trust property to the intervener herein. The Petitioner, as required under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (BPT Act), applied for permission of the learned Charity Commissioner for sale of the Trust premises. The Agreement of the Trust has been entered into since 27.3.2001. The Application under Section 36 of the BPT Act came to be filed in 2001. That Application has yet not been decided. Pending that Application, the Trust decided not to sell 2 the property as the Development Agreement showed a considerably undervalued property. The consideration, which is shown to be paid under the consideration clause of the Development Agreement, is Rs.25 Lakhs in cash. There is a consideration in kind payable by way of certain constructions to be made for the Trust premises. One of the clauses in the Development Agreement being Clause-26 makes a reference to an amount of Rs.2.23 Crores. It is not shown how that amount was to be paid by the developer shown in the Agreement. The trustees desire to withdraw the Application filed under Section 36 of the BPT Act. The learned Charity Commissioner, under the impugned order dated 14.5.2010, refused the Application. 3.The Application was made showing that the Agreement is void ab initio as it was not permitted under its bye- laws and that the consideration mentioned in the consideration clause was below the market value. The trustees applied for withdrawal on the ground that the Agreement was not valid in law. The learned Charity Commissioner has refused the withdrawal which order is impugned in this Petition. 4.A party is entitled to make an Application that it wishes. Once such Application is made for permission of the Charity Commissioner for sale of a Trust property 3 under Section 36 of the BPT Act, a party is as much entitled to withdraw it as it is entitled to make it. Hence if the Trust, for whatever reason, desires to withdraw its Application and does not desire to obtain the permission of the Charity Commissioner, I do not see how the Charity Commissioner could refuse the Application for such withdrawal. The impugned order is, therefore, completely without jurisdiction. It suffers from a patent irregularity. The impugned order is, therefore, required to be set aside. 5.The Trust shall be entitled to withdraw its own Application before the Charity Commissioner subject, however, to any of the legal rights that may have accrued to any party, including the intervener herein by virtue of any act of the Trust which may be agitated in Civil Court. 6.The Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. 7.There shall be no order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)