Bombay High Court
Jagruti Education Society , Sangli vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 February, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Gauri Godse
Digitally
2024:BHC-AS:7634
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2024.02.16
11:10:22
+0530
17-8494 - 2021.doc
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8494 OF 2021
Jagruti Education Society, Sangli
Tal-Miraj, District Sangli
Through Secretary, Shri Shivraj Balasaheb
Patil. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 17252 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8494 OF 2021
Rajkumar Ramchandra Jadhav
R/o.8, Shilpa Housing Society, Shivshakti
Nagar, MIDC, Miaj- 416410. ... Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Jagruti Education Society, Sangli
Tal-Miraj, District Sangli
Through Secretary, Shri Shivraj Balasaheb
Patil. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur. ... Respondents
Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise, for Petitioner.
Ms. Sejal A. Hariyan, for Intervenor.
Page no. 1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2024 07:57:47 :::
17-8494 - 2021.doc
Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 5th FEBRUARY, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P
waives service on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the
parties taken up for final disposal.
3. This petition challenges order dated 29th April 2019 passed by
the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur
rejecting the petitioner's application filed under section 36(1)(a) of
the Maharashtra Public Trust Act (in short 'Trust Act'). The said
application of the petitioner trust is rejected on the ground that the
sale price of the property should be atleast twice or more than four
times of the ready reckoner rate. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that all the procedure with respect to sale of the property
was undertaken by the petitioner trust by issuing public
advertisement.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the
Page no. 2 of 7
17-8494 - 2021.doc
application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur all
the necessary details were pleaded with respect to procedure
undertaken by the petitioner for inviting tenders for selling the
property. He submitted that pursuant to the tender proceedings, the
petitioner accepted the highest bid for an amount of Rs. 6,21,298/-
of the highest bidder i.e Rajkumar Ramchandra Jadhav. He submits
that thereafter, fresh tenders were called for pursuant to the order
passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the proceedings
regarding fresh tenders were also placed before the Assistant
Charity Commissioner. Pursuant to the fresh tenders, no better offer
from any third person was received. However, the same highest
bidder offered a higher amount of Rs. 7,25,000/-. He submits that
though the higher amount was offered, the Assistant Charity
Commissioner refused to grant permission on the ground that the
permission can be granted only if there is a higher offer of twice or
four times than the ready reckoner rate.
5. Learned counsel submits that inspite of conducting the
proceedings of inviting tenders on two occasions, petitioner was
unable to receive any better offer. He submitted that the petitioner
Trust is an educational trust and the amount is required by the
petitioner trust for the purpose of enhancing higher standards of the
Page no. 3 of 7
17-8494 - 2021.doc
school run by the petitioner Trust. He therefore submits that the
reasons given by the Assistant Charity Commissioner refusing
permission is unreasonable and unjust. He further submits that this
Court by order dated 19th October 2022, permitted the petitioner to
produce a fresh valuation report prepared by a Government
Authorised Valuer. He submits that pursuant to the said order, the
petitioner has placed on record valuation report dated 3rd November
2022. He submits that pursuant to the said report higest fair market
value of Rs. 9,66,116/- is quoted. He submits that the highest bidder
has filed intervention application. Learned counsel appearing for the
intervenor states that pursuant to the fresh valuation report, he is
ready to offer the price quoted in the valuation report. Considering,
the reasons in the intervention application, the intervenor is
permitted to intervene in the present matter and is heard with
respect to the higher offer made pursuant to the fresh valuation
report.
6. Learned AGP states that the valuation report relied upon by
the petitioner is dated 3rd November 2022. She therefore submits
that the petitioner may place on record a fresh valuation report and
the Assistant Charity Commissioner be directed to decide the said
application based on the fresh valuation report. Learned counsel
Page no. 4 of 7
17-8494 - 2021.doc
appearing for the petitioner as well as the intervenor are agreeable
to obtain a recent valuation report and submit the same before the
Assistant Charity Commissioner. Learned counsel appearing for the
intervenor on instructions states that the intervenor is ready to
purchase the property as per the latest market value of the property
based on the fresh valuation report that will be submitted by the
petitioner before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, or the price
already offered by him, whichever is higher.
7. Though the petitioner has undertaken the tender process on
two occasions and no higher offer was received by the petitioner.
In my view, it is necessary to take into consideration the latest
valuation report for the purpose of deciding the application for
permission to sell the trust property. The reasons given in the
impugned order that the permission can be granted only if twice or
four times the ready reckoner rate whichever is higher, appears to
be unjust and unreasonable. The petitioner is an education
institution and thus, the reason given for sale of the property is also
an important factor to be taken into consideration for deciding the
application. Hence, in my view, application needs to be decided on
the basis of the highest offer received by the petitioner and after
taking into consideration the recent market rate as per the report
Page no. 5 of 7
17-8494 - 2021.doc
submitted by the Government approved valuer, whichever is higher.
8. For the reasons stated above, the petition is disposed of by
passing following order:
I) Impugned order dated 29th April 2019 passed by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur division, Kolhapur
in Application No. 13 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.
II) Application No. 13 of 2018 filed by the petitioner is
restored to the file of the Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Kolhapur division for hearing afresh, in terms of the
observations made in this order.
III) Petitioner is permitted to place on record before the
Assistant Charity Commissioner, the recent valuation report
within a period of one month from today.
IV) The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur division,
Kolhapur shall decide the Application No.13 of 2018, afresh by
taking into consideration the recent valuation report that will
be submitted by the petitioner.
V) Since the original application is of the year 2018, hearing
Page no. 6 of 7
17-8494 - 2021.doc
of the application is expedited.
VI) Parties to appear before the Assistant Charity
Commissioner, Kolhapur division, Kolhapur on 21 st February
2024. Thereafter, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to
fix the date of further hearing of the application.
9. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. In view of disposal of the above petition, the interim
application also stands disposed of in the above terms.
11. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 7 of 7
