Petitioner challenged rejection of development permission due to prior grant to another party. Court held petition infructuous as property already developed by Respondent No.4.
Summary dismissal declared petition infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2477 OF 2005
Marathi Mission .. Petitioner
V/s
The Charity Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.S.M. Kamble for the Petitioner.
Mr.R.M. Patne, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mrs.G,K. Jadhav for Respondent No.4.
Mrs. Amita Kuthikrushnan i/b Mr.S.D. Khot for
Respondent No.5.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 24TH APRIL 2007
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the Petitioner impugns the
order dated 31st August 2004 passed by the 1st
Respondent - the Charity Commissioner refusing
permission to the Petitioner to develop the property in
question.
3. It appears that there are disputes between the
- 2 -
Petitioner Trust and the Respondent No.4 Trust regarding
ownership of the property in question. Both of them
claim to be the owners. The Respondent No.4 had
previously made an application for permission to develop
the said property under Section 36 of the Bombay Public
Trust Act which was granted. In view of the fact that
the Charity Commissioner has already granted permission
to the Respondent No.4 for development of the property
on the ground that the property belongs to the
Respondent No.4, the Charity Commissioner could not
again have granted permission to the Petitioner to
develop the property. It was for this reason that the
Charity Commissioner rejected the application filed by
the Petitioner Trust.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 states
that in pursuance of the permission granted by the
Charity Commissioner, the Respondent No.4 has already
developed the property through a developer and
constructed a building which has been handed over to the
Petitioner Trust for running a school. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner submits that a building has been
constructed, but says that he has no instructions as to
whether the possession of the building has been handed
over to the Petitioner Trust. In any event, since the
property has already been developed, there is no
- 3 -
question of granting any further permission for its
development to the Petitioner Trust. The petition has
become infructuous in view of the subsequent events.
5. The petition is rejected summarily.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition for permission to develop property must be adjudicated when another party has already developed the property under permission.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Marathi Mission
The Charity Commissioner
Respondent No.4 (not named)
D. G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court