In a writ petition challenging an order of the Charity Commissioner, the court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi, had no grievance, and their rights were not prejudiced, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
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.
:1:
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
DISTRICT :
WRIT PETITION NO.6729 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s
of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.N.A.Kadam for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Addl. Government
Pleader for Respondents.
Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.1
to 3.
Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 16TH JANUARY, 2007
P.C:
The Petitioner has challenged the
order passed by the learned Charity
Commissioner under section 36 of the
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The
Petitioner is not a beneficiary. The
Petitioner claims to have purchased
the interests of the erstwhile tenant,
who acquired the same under section
32G of the Bombay Tenancy &
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The
:2:
validity of this contention is denied
by Respondent No.4, who is a
transferee pursuant to the impugned
order.
2. The Petitioner has no
locus-standi. Further, the Petitioner
has no grievance and the Petitioner’s
rights are not prejudiced in any
manner. The sale is subject to the
rights and contentions of the
Petitioners, if any.
3. The sale of the property or the
development rights in favour of
Respondent No.4 is subject to all
alleged rights of the Petitioner.
4. In the circumstances, the Writ
Petition is dismissed.
All parties to act on an ordinary
copy of this order duly authenticated
by the Sheristedar/Personal Assistant.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the impugned order.
Whether the petitioner has suffered any prejudice enabling them to maintain a writ petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent No.1 to 3
Respondent No.4
Trustee/Beneficiaries
S.J.VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court