Bombay High Court
Nairsons Education Society, ... vs The Joint Charity Commissioner, ... on 7 August, 2017
Bench: S.C. Gupte
1 wp1980.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1980/2017
Nairsons Education Society,
A registered Public Trust,
through its President Shri Suresh
Nair, aged about 62 Yrs.,
Occu. Business, R/o Marartoli,
Ramnagar, Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
The Joint Charity Commissioner,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri C.S. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.R. Chutke, A.G.P. for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATE : 7.8.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri C.S. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri A.R.
Chutke, A.G.P. for the respondent.
2. Rule. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for hearing
forthwith.
3. The petition challenges an order passed by the Joint Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur on an application under Section 36(1)(a) of the
2 wp1980.17
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The application before the Charity
Commissioner was for permission to gift the land held by the applicant Trust
(the petitioner herein) to a foundation registered as a company under Section
25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The objects of both the applicant Trust and the
foundation are the same, namely, promoting and providing education.
Whereas the applicant trust has been running a school, the foundation, which
is a non-profit company, has been running a professional educational
institution on the adjacent land where it proposes to construct professional
educational institutions such as M.B.A college, degree college, hostel etc. and
for which it requires the adjacent land owned by the applicant trust. Since the
objects of both were similar, it was resolved by the trustees that it would be in
the interest of the trust to gift the land to the foundation inter alia against an
assurance by the foundation to admit the students of the applicant trust. The
impugned order of the Charity Commissioner reveals that there is practically no
consideration as to how the gift proposed by the applicant trust in favour of the
foundation was not in the interest of the applicant trust. There is no
application of mind as to whether the applicant trust was in a position or could
have made a better beneficial use of the said plot. All that the impugned order
holds is that the applicant's submissions in support of the proposed gift deed
did not hold merit. The Charity Commissioner was expected to apply his mind
to the purpose for which the gift was proposed to be made in the light of the
objects of the donor trust and the donee foundation and after applying his
3 wp1980.17
mind, decide if the applicant trust was in a position to make any better use of
the property. The Joint Charity Commissioner has evidently failed to do so.
The impugned order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, in the premises, will
have to be set aside and the matter will have to be remanded for a fresh
consideration in accordance with law.
4. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the
matter is remanded for a de novo hearing in accordance with law. Rule is made
absolute and the petition disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
