Dismissed¶¶42

Jehangir Ardeshiv Rabadi and Ors. v. Honourable Charity Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2026IA/2546/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 writ petition; Charity Commissioner; Maharashtra Public Trusts Act Section 36(1)/36(2); revocation of sale/transfer permission; tenant not a necessary party; hearing before grant of permission; fraud, forgery or misrepresentation; Joint Charity Commissioner auction fair and transparent; third highest bidder declared successful; first two bidders failed 50% deposit; Rs.61,00,000 bid vs Rs.52,78,000 valuation; S. Kumar Developers and Builders 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 2308 distinguished; Section 43 Bombay Tenency and Agricultural Lands Act; Maharashtra Rent Control Act tenancy rights survive transfer; Bombay HC, Amit Borkar J., 15 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; Interim Application No.2546 of 2026 allowed and stands disposed of. ¶¶42

Jehangir Ardeshiv Rabadi and Ors. vs Honourable… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; Interim Application No.2546 of 2026 allowed and stands disposed of.

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who claim to be tenants of the subject property, were entitled to a hearing before grant of permission under Section 36(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, and whether the permission granted under Section 36(1) was open to revocation under Section 36(2) on the grounds urged. +2 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

A tenant of the trust property is not a necessary party to proceedings under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The scope of powers under Section 36(2) is limited to revocation of a permission granted under Section 36(1).

¶¶37

Key takeaways

Neither the grounds urged by the petitioners nor the material placed on record demonstrate that the trust obtained the permission by practising fraud upon the Charity Commissioner or by making any misrepresentation.ratio¶¶37
The auction process was conducted by the Joint Charity Commissioner in a fair and transparent manner.ratio¶¶38
The consideration offered by the successful bidder was substantially higher than the value reflected in the valuer's report.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maharashtra Public Trusts Act — Section 36 permission/revocation; Article 227 challenge dismissed. Shabnoor Ayub Pathan, sole signatory; coram Amit Borkar, J.; dated 15 June 2026. The petitioners, claiming to be tenants of the subject trust property, challenged the Charity Commissioner's rejection of their Section 36(2) application seeking revocation of a Section 36(1) permission, and contested the acceptance of the third highest bidder (Rs.61,00,000/- against a valuation of Rs.52,78,000/-) after the top two bidders failed to deposit 50% of the bid amount. The court held that a tenant of trust property is not a necessary party to Section 36 proceedings; the scope of Section 36(2) is limited to revocation upon satisfaction that the permission was obtained by fraud, forgery or misrepresentation, which was not demonstrated; the Joint Charity Commissioner's auction was fair and transparent with consideration well above the valuer's report; and the relied-upon Division Bench decision in S. Kumar Developers and Builders v. Bhimrao and Others (2012 SCC OnLine Bom 2308) was distinguished as turning on its own facts involving agricultural land and Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; Interim Application No.2546 of 2026 was allowed and disposed of.

¶1

55-ia-2546-2026 with WP.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4200 OF 2018

SHABNOOR

AYUB

PATHAN

Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2026.06.15 18:03:56 +0530

¶9

Jehangir Ardeshiv Rabadi & Ors. … Petitioners

¶10

V/s.

¶11

The Charity Commissioner & Ors. … Respondents

¶12

WITH

¶13

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2546 OF 2026 IN

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.4200 OF 2018

¶15

Jehangir A Rabadi … Applicant In the matter between Jehangir Ardeshiv Rabadi & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The Charity Commissioner & Ors. … Respondents

¶16

Mr. Mohd. Zahid Batt i/b L. J. Law, for the Petitioners/ Applicants.

¶17

Mrs. V. R. Raje, AGP, for the State – Respondent.

¶18

Ms. Kalyani Deshmukh i/b FZB & Associates, for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to 7.

¶19

Mr. A. Z. Mookhtiar a/w Arshaan L. i/b K Ashar & Co, for Respondent Nos.8 and 9.

¶20

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶21

DATED : JUNE 15, 2026

¶22

P.C.:

¶23

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2546 OF 2026

¶24

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

¶25

¶26

55-ia-2546-2026 with WP.doc

¶27

The interim application stands disposed of.

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.4200 OF 2018

¶29

By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Charity Commissioner rejecting their application under Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act seeking revocation of the permission granted under Section 36(1) of the said Act. The petitioners claim to be tenants in the subject property. The application for revocation was principally founded on the grounds that the petitioners, being tenants of the property, were entitled to a hearing before grant of permission under Section 36(1) of the Act and that no such opportunity was given to them.

¶30

It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the tender process, the successful purchaser was originally the third highest bidder and that the acceptance of the bid in favour of such bidder was improper and contrary to the prescribed procedure.

¶31

The Charity Commissioner considered the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and examined the entire bidding process, including the circumstances in which the offer of the third highest bidder came to be accepted.

¶32

Upon such consideration, the Charity Commissioner recorded a finding that though higher offers had initially been received, the first two highest bidders failed to comply with the directions issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner requiring them to deposit 50% of the bid amount. As they failed to deposit

¶33

¶34

55-ia-2546-2026 with WP.doc

¶35

the requisite amount within the stipulated period, the third highest bidder, having complied with all the conditions and deposited the amount as directed, was declared the successful bidder. It was further noted that the successful bidder had offered a sum of Rs.61,00,000/-, whereas the valuation report assessed the market value of the property at Rs.52,78,000/-.

¶36

Insofar as the contention regarding the petitioners being tenants and, therefore, entitled to a hearing is concerned, in my view, a tenant of the trust property is not a necessary party to proceedings under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. The scope of powers under Section 36(2) is limited to revocation of a permission granted under Section 36(1) upon satisfaction that such permission was obtained by fraud, forgery or misrepresentation. Neither the grounds urged by the petitioners nor the material placed on record demonstrate that the trust obtained the permission by practising fraud upon the Charity Commissioner or by making any misrepresentation.

¶37

The record further indicates that the auction process was conducted by the Joint Charity Commissioner in a fair and transparent manner. The consideration offered by the successful bidder was substantially higher than the value reflected in the valuer's report. In these circumstances, the Charity Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioners' application seeking revocation of the permission granted under Section 36(1) of the Act.

¶38

¶39

55-ia-2546-2026 with WP.doc

¶40

Insofar as reliance placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in S. Kumar Developers and Builders v. Bhimrao and Others, reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 2308, is concerned, the said decision turned on its own facts. In that case, the property involved was agricultural land proposed to be transferred without obtaining the requisite permission under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Moreover, if the petitioners are tenants and enjoy protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, their tenancy rights, if any, would continue to be governed by law, the transfer of the trust property.

¶41

In the aforesaid circumstances, no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error can be found in the impugned order.

¶42

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶43

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶44

Jehangir Ardeshiv Rabadi and Ors. v. Honourable Charity Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jehangir Ardeshiv Rabadi and Ors. v. Honourable Charity Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aruna Rashid Kathiwala Thr Her Poa vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Lou Ann Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra Thro. District Deputy Registrar of Co.-Op Soc

Anusaya Ravindra KENI57 vs District Deputy Registrar and Ors.

Aqsa Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Sushilabai Raghunath Wani Vs the Collectro of Nashik and Ors.

The Executive Engineer and Anr. Vs Shri. Bhimrao Keshav Bhosale