1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 1124 OF 2010 Mukhtiyar Noormohmad Vohra .. Petitioner Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner The State of Maharshtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. J. J. Bhatt Sr. Counsel with Mr. H. H. Parikh with Tushar Gujjar i/b Ashwin Ankhad & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Chetan Kapadia with Mr. S. H. Merchant i/b M. M. Legal Venture for Respondent No. 2. Mr. D. D. Madon i/b Mr. Sherali Karim for Respondent No.3. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 25th June, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The only aspect to consider in this Writ Petition is whether the learned Charity Commissioner, Mumbai would have jurisdiction to pass orders under the Bombay Public Trusts Act (BPT Act) in respect of a trust registered in Mumbai but having properties in Mumbai as well as outside Mumbai in respect of properties which are outside Mumbai. In this case 2nd Respondent Trust was registered under the BPT Act with the Charity Commissioner in Mumbai. The Trust had properties in Mumbai as well as in Gujarat. Some of the properties in Gujarat have been sought to be sold and 2 transferred by the trustees of Respondent No.2 Trust. The sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the BPT Act was to be obtained. 3. The Charity Commissioner invited bids. The Petitioner is the unsuccessful bidder. Respondent No.3 is the successful bidder. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Charity Commissioner, Mumbai sanctioning the sale in favour of Respondent No.3 on the ground that the Charity Commissioner had no territorial jurisdiction to sanction the sale of the properties of the trust which are situate in Gujarat. 4. Under Section 3 of the BPT Act the Charity Commissioner is appointed by the State Government by a notification in the official gazette and is empowered to exercise powers, duties and functions under the Act throughout the State in which he is appointed. 5. For registration of the Public Trust under Section 18 of the BPT Act the application is required to be made to the Charity Commissioner within the limits of whose jurisdiction the trust property or substantial portion of the trust property is situate. 6. Under Section 19 of the BPT Act the inquiry that is contemplated for registration of the trust is inter alia with regard to whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject matter of the trust is within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner before whom the application is made. 7. This provision contemplates that only where the 3 entire of the trust properties or a substantial portion of the trust properties are situate, the Charity Commissioner of that State would register the trust. Consequently such a Charity Commissioner where the whole or any substantial portion of the properties are situate would have jurisdiction in respect of the trust. 8. Such Charity Commissioner would, therefore, exercise jurisdiction for the properties which are situate in the State where he is appointed as also over the properties which are situate in any other State or States where the less substantial part of the trust properties are situate. There cannot be 2 offices of Charity Commissioner exercising jurisdiction over one trust because a trust can be registered in only one State even if it has properties in more than one State. Upon the registration of the trust the Charity Commissioner before whom the trust is registered shall exercise jurisdiction over all the properties of the trust, whether they are within the State of outside that State. 9. Counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nautam Prakash D.G.S.V.C. Vadtal and Ors. Vs. K. K. Thakkar and Ors. (AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2075) to contend that when the trust property was partly in the State where the trust was not registered that Charity Commissioner was held not to have jurisdiction over that property. 10. The Counsel for Respondent No.3 has pointed out that that case was in respect of Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional Reorganization) Order, 1960 4 consequent upon the bifurcation of the State of Bombay in the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat and applied where the public trust was registered before the appointed date under that Order. That was 28th April, 1960. In that case part property was situate in one of the States and part property in the other. A deeming provision was created for the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner in the region where that property was situate. This Judgment, therefore, does not apply to trust registered under the BPT Act after 1960 in the State of Maharashtra. In such cases the registration would be only if at least the substantial portion of the subject matter of the trust was situate in Maharashtra. 11. The Charity Commissioner of Bombay, therefore, had jurisdiction in respect of order sanctioning the sale including following the required procedure of inviting and accepting bids. 12. Consequently the Petition is without merit. The jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai cannot be challenged. 13. In view of the above legal position, the Petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. ( R. S. DALVI, J.)