WP 5434 of 10 1 SSK/14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5434 OF 2010 Shri. Gurudutta Shikshan Sanstha, Kalvan, Nasik ....Petitioner Versus Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nasik ...Respondent Ms. Gauri Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for the Respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 12th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and since short point is involved, the petition is taken up for hearing. 2. By the impugned order, the Respondent rejected the Petitioner’s application under section 36-A(3) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 seeking permission to raise loan to the tune of Rs.8,12,00,000/-. The Petitioner’s application is rejected mainly on the following grounds: 1 The application does not contain name of the applicant. WP 5434 of 10 2 SSK/14 2. It does not contain the prayer clause. 3. It is not verified as per Rule. 4. Lastly, the applicant has not complied with the terms and conditions of earlier orders dated 29th April, 2005 and 28th November, 2006 granting permission to the Petitioner to raise loan to the tune of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and Rs.3,15,00,000/- respectively. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the compilation of the writ petition, I find none of the reasons given by the Respondent to reject the Petitioner’s application are sustainable. The Petitioners application under section 36-A(3) of the B.P.T.Act is annexed at page 40. The application is preferred on the letter head of the Petitioner’s society. By this application, a permission is sought to raise the loan of Rs.8,12,00,000/- from the Bank of India, Branch Kalwan, District Nashik for construction of the school building. Several documents are annexed with this application. Section 36-A of the B.P.T. Act does not prescribe any specific format in which the application for permission is to be preferred. Alongwith the application, the Petitioner has filed four affidavits verifying the contents of the application. The application as well as the affidavits contains details of the project in question. In these circumstances, the Joint Charity Commissioner could not have rejected the WP 5434 of 10 3 SSK/14 Petitioner’s application on technical ground. If the Joint Charity Commissioner is of the opinion that there is some lacuna in the application of the Petitioner, then, in the interest of justice, he ought to have granted an opportunity to the Petitioner to remove that lacuna. 3. The reasoning of the Joint Charity Commissioner that the Petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions of the earlier orders dated 29th April, 2005 and 28th November, 2006 is also not correct. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the terms and conditions of the above orders are already complied with, either by giving undertaking or by giving statement of accounts. 4. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the Respondent ought not to have rejected the Petitioner’s application on technical ground and should have decided the same on merits. I therefore, dispose of the petition by passing the following order : 1. The impugned order dated 1st January, 2010 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region, Nashik is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Joint Charity Commissioner to decide the Petitioner’s application under section 36-A of the B.P.T Act afresh, WP 5434 of 10 4 SSK/14 independently on its own merit and in the light of the observations made above. 2. The Joint Charity Commissioner shall decide the said application as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 3. The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of the order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.)