wp2164-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2164 OF 2011 Shri Gurudutta Shikshan Sanstha through its Chairman, Mr.Shailesh J. Pawar .. Petitioner versus Jt.Charity Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik .. Respondent Ms.Gauri K. Jadhav for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 8th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard both sides. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nasik Region, Nasik has rejected the petitioner’s application invoking his jurisdiction under section 36A(3) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and, therefore, this writ petition. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inviting my attention to the provisions in the field and particularly sections wp2164-11.doc 2 31A and 36A(3) submitted that the Joint Charity Commissioner earlier had passed a order rejecting the application of the petitioner- Trust on the technical grounds which necessitated the Trust approaching this Court. His earlier order was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. 3 She submits that the fresh order rejects the application on grounds which are not germane to the controversy at all. She submits that application has been rejected on the ground that the Trust has failed to comply with section 31A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. 4 Inviting my attention to these provisions, she submits that in the instant case the application made was for a specific purpose. The permission was sought to borrow monies so as to put up additional construction. This construction was required for the purposes of the secondary school. It was the additional classes and divisions which necessitated the construction. With the application, the petitioners forwarded a copy of the resolution, wp2164-11.doc 3 necessary undertakings, the registration certificate, the copy of the purpose and objectives of the Trust, the project report, valuation report and the audited accounts for last three years so also the plans for development. The details with regard to the immovable properties were also submitted. 5 On perusal of this application, I am satisfied that the Joint Charity Commissioner was in complete error in rejecting the instant application. The Charity Commissioner was obliged to consider as to whether the application made for borrowing monies on behalf of the Trust is for the purposes or the objects of the Trust and whether the trustees have acted as men of ordinary prudence. These are the germane considerations and if at all the Joint Charity Commissioner was of the opinion that the trustees have to comply with other requirements of the Act and Rules, he could have given necessary directions. However, failure to consider the application only because the budget was not forwarded and submitted to the Charity Commissioner, in the peculiar facts, to my mind, does not warrant the rejection of the application. Whether the other requirements are fulfilled or not wp2164-11.doc 4 ought to have been seen and the application deserved to be considered, in the light of the statutory provisions applicable and invoked. That having not being done, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application made by the petitioners will now be considered by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State who shall pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. He shall do so without in any manner being influenced by the earlier orders and directions of the Joint Charity Commissioner. Petition is allowed in these terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)