1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2548 OF 2010 Sardar Kuldeepsingh s/o Sardar Jaisingh Dhody .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Joint Charity Commissioner & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.M. Godsay, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Mr. Godsay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mandlik, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Amol Gandhi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2 Petitioner is the objector who presented the objection application opposing the grant of permission for alienating the trust property as proposed by the respondents herein, the office bearers of the trust. It is not 2 necessary to go into the factual aspects of the matter. On presentation of objection application, the petitioner herein requested the Charity Commissioner to frame points for consideration so that it would enable the objection petitioner to lead evidence in its proper perspective. The application has been objected by the respondents, the office bearers of the trust who are the applicants before the Charity Commissioner on the ground that the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner are of summary nature and Rule 7 does not contemplate framing of issues. 3 Even if the proceedings are of summary nature, the Charity Commissioner is expected to decide as to whether the alienation of the trust property is in the best interest of the trust and as to whether the office bearers of the trust have followed the procedure for making alienation. The learned Charity Commissioner is also expected to deal with the issue as to whether the price fixed is comparable with the market price. The Charity Commissioner may take into consideration the provisions of section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and proceed to hold the enquiry and determine the questions as required by law. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client intends to lead evidence; oral as well as documentary. He may lead evidence in support of his objection application and for deciding 3 the controversy involved in the matter within the scope and ambit of provisions of section 36 of the Act. The Charity Commissioner may hold enquiry and render his decision on the points referred above. No interference is required to be caused in the instant petition. Petition therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. 5 Authenticated copy of the order be supplied to the parties. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp2548.10.odt