bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5883 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5883 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5883 OF 2008 Ambika Enterprises ... Petitioner v/s Chinchwad Devasthan Trust & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Pravin Samdani with Aniruddha Joshi i/by Vinod Tayade for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Pitre for the respondent No.1. Mr.V.V.Tulzapurkar i/by Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the respondent No.2. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 3RD OCTOBER, 2008 3RD OCTOBER, 2008 3RD OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition challenges the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Division in Misc. Application No.6 of 2008. This order has been passed on an application made by the petitioner for a review of the order dated 16.5.2008 by which permission was accorded to assign the rights of the 1st respondent Trust in the property by executing the development agreement and other relevant documents for the consideration arrived at between the parties. 2 2. The property of the Trust had been taken over by the Pimpari-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The Corporation was willing to pay an amount of Rs.1,62,00,000/- to the Trust as it requires the premises for a public purpose. The Trust called for bids when respondent No.2 tendered its bid for the property and offered a price of Rs.5 lacs. The offer of respondent No.2 being the highest, was accepted by the Trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner has accorded sanction for the development agreement between the parties and has passed an order on 16.5.2008. 3. The petitioner claimed that he is willing to offer twice the amount for the same rights as were accorded to respondent No.2 by filing Misc. Application No.6 of 2008. The Joint Charity Commissioner has rejected the application and, in my opinion, rightly. After the order was passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 16.5.2008 sanctioning the execution of the development agreement, the agreement was executed on 19.5.2008. It was only thereafter that the petitioner filed the application on 7.6.2008 before the Joint Charity Commissioner contending that he was willing to pay a higher price. If indeed the petitioner was ready to offer a higher amount, he could have bid at the outset 3 when offers were invited by the Trust, rather than waiting for the Joint Charity Commissioner to pass the orders in favour of the respondent No.2. The petitioner did not bother to participate in those proceedings nor did the petitioner file an application immediately after the order was passed on 16.5.2008. He waited till the execution of the agreement between the 1st respondent Trust and the 2nd respondent on 19.5.2008, to submit his offer before the Joint Charity Commissioner. 4. Mr.Tulzapurkar, learned advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent has invited my attention to the judgment in the case of Shailesh Developers v/s Joint Charity Shailesh Developers v/s Joint Charity Shailesh Developers v/s Joint Charity Commissioner, Commissioner, Commissioner, reported in 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 7, reported in 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 7, reported in 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 7, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has considered two questions, one of which was as follows: "Whether the party who comes forward to submit his offer directly before the Charity Commissioner in a pending application under Section 36 of the said Act of 1950 has locus standi to challenge the order passed in a proceeding under Section 36 ?" The full bench, while answering this question has held thus - "30. The second question referred to the Full Bench for decision is regarding locus standi of a person who appears before the Charity Commissioner and offers his bid to challenge the order passed by the Charity Commissioner. 4 The trustees and persons having an interest in the Trust can always challenge the order. We have already held that the proceeding under section 36 of the said Act before the learned Charity Commissioner is a judicial proceeding. The Apex Court has held that a trust property is on par with a public property so far as its sale or transfer is concerned. It is, therefore, very difficult to say that such a person who appears before the Charity Commissioner and offers his bid has no locus standi to challenge the final order passed by the Charity Commissioner. Such a person will certainly have locus standi to file the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the final order passed under Section 36 of the said Act. However, the scope of challenge will be naturally limited. such a person will be in a position of a bidder, challenging the auction or tender process of sale of a public property. The challenge by such a person to the order will be limited to the decision making process of the Charity Commissioner. In the case of A.R.Khan Construwell the Division Bench has rightly held that after the decision in the case of Arunodaya Prefab, the concept of locus standi has been expanded." 5. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, since the petitioner is willing to offer a much higher amount i.e. an amount of Rs.10 crores, the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner should be set aside, is unsustainable. In my view, there is no reason to set aside the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner has accepted the fact that the bid of the respondent No.2 was the highest amongst the three bids received. He has also considered that respondent No.2 had offered a much higher amount than that offered by 5 the Corporation. The Joint Charity Commissioner has accepted the offer of respondent No.2. 7. Writ petition rejected. 8. The amount which has been deposited by the petitioner in this Court may be returned to the petitioner.