AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The petitioners who happened to be applicants before the Joint Charity Commissioner in application being Application No. 51/1 of 2005 filed seeking permission u/s 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Trusts Act'' for the sake of brevity), and who are also appellants before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. 10 of 2006 where under they have challenged the order of Joint Charity Commissioner dated 30/6/2006 whereby permission was declared for approaching this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers:-
(A) This Honorable Court Would Be Pleased To issue an appropriate writ order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30/6/2006 passed by the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot and also be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 27/4/2010 passed by the Learned Member of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. TEN/AR/10/2006 in the interest of justice.
(B) This Honourable Court Would Be Pleased To direct the respondent no. 16 herein to grant consent for filing the Suit and be pleased to grant reliefs as prayer for in the Application at Annexure "A" to the petition under the provisions of Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1050, in the interest of justice and equity.
(C) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of present petition This Honourable Court Would Be Pleased To stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 30/6/2006 passed by the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot and also be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 27/4/2010 passed by the Learned Member of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in the interest of justice and equity.
(D) This Honorable Court Would Be Pleased To grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
Thus what is essentially under challenge is the findings and the reasonings of two authorities, viz., Joint Charity Commissioner pronounced vide order dated 30/6/2006 and that of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 27/4/2010.
The facts in brief leading to filing this petition is required to be set out as under in order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition.
The respondents - trustees are managing a trust set up by the concerned known as "Shree Panch Navtanpuri Dham Khijada Mandir Trust", registered since 1961. The present petitioners have claimed to be interested persons and beneficiaries and were aggrieved on account of various alleged deviations in the religious activities and other actions on the part of the trustees in alienating trust properties and indulging into profit making and not following the principles enunciated in the trust deed, moved an application u/s 51 of the Trusts Act for instituting suit in respect of the aforesaid grievances, namely for providing new settlement scheme and setting right the grievances voiced in the application.
This application was resisted by all the trustees on various grounds and it was alleged that the present petitioners themselves are in fact bidders in the sale of some of the properties and were actuated on account of ulterior motive and for usurping the position in the trustees of the trust and therefore said application was required to be rejected.
Concerned Joint Charity Commissioner, after examining the required provisions and hearing the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the application cannot be said to have been filed bonafide nor was there any substantive deviation by the trustees so as to accord permission and hence rejected the same vide his order dated 30/6/2006. This order was carried into appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal wherein it was registered as Appeal No. TEN/AR/10/2006 wherein also after hearing the parties Gujarat Revenue tribunal concurred with the decision rendered by Joint Charity Commissioner against the present petitioners. Hence present petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same preferred this petition invoking Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed as aforesaid.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were seriously aggrieved on account of the mal-administration in the trust and as interested persons and beneficiaries they were legitimately entitled to bring in action against the trustees and hence permission was sought to be obtained from the competent authority. The provision of Section 50 as well as Section 51 of the Trusts Act amply provides for such institution of suit. Therefore the Respondent no. 11-The Joint Charity Commissioner was not justified in assuming the task of adjudicator and came to the conclusion that there existed no need of issuance of any permission. The order of the Joint Charity Commissioner therefore was patently erroneous, incorrect, illegal and therefore, it is required to be quashed and set aside.
Learned advocate for the petitioners thereafter contended that the petitioners main grievance qua management of trust deeply persuaded them in filing the suit and therefore, requisite application was made for obtaining permission. The main grievances qua management of the trust could be enlisted as under, namely:-
(i) The present trustees did not have any power or authority to dispose of the trust''s immovable properties.
(ii) Trustees action in disposing of the trust properties was patently unauthorized and illegal, and contrary to the trust deed and hence it was clear breach of the trust.
(iii) The trustees brought about change in the trust constitution so as to bring in entirely now set of principles governing the trust which dealt a serious blow to the basic tenet of religious sect for which the trust was set up.
(iv) The trustees and others concerned did not adhere to the scriptures where under the salutary procedure and conduct is prescribed.
(v) The Mahant denounced wearing of white colour clothes and did not follow the system of not spotting beard nor did he carry with him in his travel "Hajoori" who is supposed to know and well versed in these all procedures so far as this sect is concerned.
(vi) The setting up of hand statue "Pancho" at the crest of the temple was also not prescribed in the religious scriptures. All these deviations which were palpably made dehors the religious tenets could not have been overlooked by any one much less by Joint Charity Commissioner, nor could have the same being brushed aside by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and hence the petition is required to be allowed.
Learned advocate for the petitioners invited this Court''s attention to the averments made in the memo of the petition on page-143 and submitted that all these properties have been alienated though under the sanction obtained by the trustees u/s 36 of the Trusts Act. The orders sanctioning disposal of the properties clearly indicate that there was no justification for selling property on the part of the trustees. The trustees would not have therefore indulged in to profiteering or selling of the properties without there being any absolute justification for doing so. Learned counsel for the petitioners candidly admitted that it is not the case of the petitioners that there was ever lacuna on permission u/s 36 of the Trusts Act. In fact at all the times the permission was obtained u/s 36 of the Trust Act but mere taking permission in itself would not absolve the trustees of their primary obligation to maintain trust property and shall not alienate them unless & until it was absolutely warranted for maintenance of the trust.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners thereafter contended that even a cursory glance at the orders made u/s 36 of the Trust Act for granting permission to alienate the property mentioned in the list itself would be sufficient to indicate that in what manner the permission was granted which would reveal lack of proper consideration on the part of the concerned authority which would clearly indicate that there was absolutely no justification in disposing of the properties by the trustees. This also can be classified to be patent breach of trust and therefore the petition is required to be allowed.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners thereafter invited this Court''s attention to the application made before Joint Charity Commissioner for indicating as to how the trust constitution is wholly changed. The reference is made in respect to the document of 1917 and 1952 and it was submitted that the change report which was though approved was got approved on wholly untenable ground as if 1952 document through oversight was not available at the relevant time when the trust was being registered. All these go to show that the trustees have acted contrary to the trust and hence they are liable and accountable for their act and only competent forum to grant permission is the civil court which can look into this aspect and therefore, it was absolutely essential on the part of the concerned in granting sanction or permission to bring action against the trustees by way of filing civil suit.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners thereafter contended that the photographs were produced to indicate as to how and in what manner the trustees and Mahant have deviated from religious practice and scriptures. Mahant is given up putting up white clothes and he has started wearing clothes of Bhagva. Mahant is spotting beard though in religion beard is not required to be spotted. Learned advocate invited this Court''s attention to page-252 wherein photographs of earlier Mahant are also produced and it was also mentioned in what manner present Mahant is deviating from avowed practice of past and acting contrary to the scriptures.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed to the observations of this Court made in a decision in case of 5 Navtanpuri Dham-Khijda Mandir Trust and Others Vs. Anilbhai Bhagwanji Jobanputra and Others, and submitted that this was the case wherein the trustees had to move the Court and present petitioners were respondents as the permission for alienating property was quashed & set aside by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and therefore that order was under challenge. At that time the observations made by the Court clearly indicate that how and in what manner trustees were functioning. Therefore the observations of this Court so far as the conduct of the trustees are concerned deserve to be borne-in-mind while examining challenge to the order impugned in this petition.
Learned advocate for the petitioners thereafter contended that though the fact remains to be noted that some of the observations were not in favour of the present petitioners who were respondents therein and therefore present petitioners were also constrained to file SLP(Civil) Nos. 15701-15702 of 2011, wherein Supreme Court passed the following order.
These petitions are directed against orders dated 21.4.2008 and 18.1.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court and Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot (Gujarat) respectively.
The petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of 985 days delay in filing SLP qua order dated 21.4.2008.
After arguing the case for some time and realizing that this Court is not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw these petitions.
The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that, that in itself would not militate against in any manner in grossing of the contention qua the grounds for seeking permission to institute suit against the trustees of the trust.
Learned advocate for the petitioners relying upon decision of this Court in case of Hamumiya Bachumiya and Others Vs. Mehmhusen Gulam Husen and Others, and contended that this Court has amply answered as to how the property of the trust is to be dealt with by the trustees and special emphasis was placed upon observations made by the Court in para no. 4 & 5. It was contended that profiteering is an absolute alien concept so far as the trust properties are concerned. Therefore, there was no justification on the part of the trustees to indulge into alienating the properties of the trust, even assuming for the sake of argument that the property so sold fetched handsome price, as the basic principle of the trust property is that the trustees are to preserve the property of the trust for further interest of the trust and beneficiary of the persons interested in the trust. Therefore selling of the property was not there in the original trust provisions, same being contrary to the trust deed was required to be viewed seriously and therefore the permission could not have been denied to the petitioners.
Learned advocate for the petitioners invited this Court''s attention to the decision of this Court reported in 13 GLR 770 in case of Mahant Ratandasji Sevadasji And Anr. Vs. Babubhai Krishnashanker Dave & Ors, and contended that the Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the Tribunal were not justified in examining the controversy as if they were the adjudicatory authorities. Joint Charity Commissioner in the first instance could not have examined the controversy as if he was adjudicating the controversy and come to the conclusion on merits of the matter. Learned advocate therefore invited this Court''s attention to the tenor of the order of Joint Charity Commissioner as well as that of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and contended that the findings so recorded clearly indicate that Joint Charity Commissioner as well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal committed patent error in undertaking and examining of the controversy which did not fall under their purview while exercising power u/s 51 of Trust Act for merely granting sanction to bring in action in nature of suit.
Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the trustees are to plead and establish "compelling necessity" for alienating the property. In absence thereof there cannot be said to be any justification for selling the property. The orders granting sanction are blissfully silent qua this aspect is concerned and therefore the entire issue could have been properly adjudicated had there been a sanction granted by concerned authority.
Learned advocate for the petitioners thereafter contended that the religious discourses are to be conducted within the precincts of the temple. Instead thereof they have been performed outside the temple premises. The attempt on the part of the trustees in alienating properties which are essentially meant for devotees and students also would militate against their claim of being managing the trust in accordance with trust deed.
Learned advocate appearing for respondent trustees contended that the present petitioners have no locus to file present petition inasmuch as the present petitioners cannot be said to be either beneficiaries or interested persons in terms of the provision of Section 2(10) of the Trusts Act. Learned advocate thereafter contended that the present petitioners ought not to have filed this petition without placing on record the entire facts and conflict of interest as could be seen from the record. Learned advocate for the respondents contended that this very petitioners were interested in usurping position of trustees in the trust and they have failed in such an attempt, they by way of wrecking vengeance took to litigating path resulting into filing of umpteen number of petitions and proceedings against the trustees and the trust as well.
Learned advocate for the respondent trustees contended that present petitioners themselves were in fact unsuccessful bidders in sale of some of the immovable properties as noted by the Tribunal as well as the Joint Charitable Commissioner. When such is the case then petitioners are not justified in contending before this Court that there exists no power or authority in trustees to alienate properties or there existed no compelling necessity in the trustees in selling the property. Had they been so religiously meant devotees then they could never have been participated in the sale proceedings of the trust property. These factors which have remained uncontroverted would deal a serious blow to the standing of the present petitioners in maintaining the petition and therefore on this ground alone the petition is required to be dismissed.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondent trustees thereafter contended that the petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India but the fact remains that this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two authorities whose orders are under challenge in this petition
Learned advocate for the respondent trustees invited this Court''s attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as Joint Charity Commissioner and submitted that this Court in fact has held in case of Hargovindbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs. Prabhudas Raichand Sanghani, that the Charity Commissioner while examining the application has to satisfy himself with regard to existence of prima facie case for seeking permission that would entail inquiry which cannot be said to be not warranted and in the instant case bearing those principle in mind and even the mandate of the Court the Charity Commissioner has observed that the petitioners were not actuated on account of any benefit. Rather Charity Commissioner has gone on record to say that the petitioners were actuated on account of malafide intention which cannot be said rather disqualify them for maintaining the application itself. This finding of the Tribunal petitioners not being bonafide would support, rather is approved by the Tribunal and therefore this Court while exercising power under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution surely would not go beyond this fact finding exercise and hold otherwise than what is being proved on record. Thus on this count also petition is required to be dismissed.
Learned advocate for the respondent trustees thereafter contended that the petitioners own SLP arisen from the decision cited at the Bar in case of Five Navtanpuri Dham-Khijda Mandir Trust (supra) itself is quite important to suggest that the petitioners have no locus now to file petition nor have the petitioner any ground to agitate before this Court as the finding recorded by learned Single Judge clearly indicate that the trustees have power and authority to sell trust''s properties It is a different matter as to whether the sale of property is justified or not and therefore when the petitioners have suffered such finding from this Court in the form of judgment and when petitioners attempt to challenge the same before the Apex Court by way of filing SLP and when they were compelled to withdraw the petition, they have no further ground to re-agitate same aspect under the guise of challenge the decision of Joint Charity Commissioner as well as that of the Tribunal. Otherwise it amounts to inviting Court to reiterate and re-adjudicate the issue which has already been decided and attained finality as the said judgment of this Court containing decision and the finding qua trustees authority to sell the properties cannot now be re-examined.
Learned advocate for the respondent trustees relied upon decision in case of Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Others, with special emphasis on para-31 & 32 on powers under article 227 and power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and courts within the bounds of their authority.
Learned advocate for the respondent trustees also relied upon another decision in case of Abdul Khader (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Tarabai and Others, to support his say that it is general rule not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Tribunals/Courts below.
Learned advocate for respondent trustees thereafter invited this Court''s attention to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that statement on oath have not been controverted and it has been mentioned there under that the specimen of statue of ''Hand'' at the crust of the temple is as old existing and available since last more than 100 years and it is simply not disturbed by anyone. So far as donning of white clothes are concerned, it is not supported by petitioners by way of any tenets in the scriptures and it is denied that there is any requirement of donning only white clothes as alleged. The properties have been sold after obtaining approval from competent authority u/s 36 of the Trusts Act and this permission never have been challenged at any point of time and no property without permission has ever been sold and sale proceeds have been ploughed back in development of trust''s religious activities and its expansion.
Learned advocate for the respondent trustees thereafter contended that the factum of not carrying ''Hajoori'' when Mahant was traveling to USA is of no consequence as there is no support to this fact indicating from the scriptures. It is also indicated in the affidavit-in-reply that religious discourses are conducted within the temple precincts as per the old tradition and there is no deviation there from. At this stage Shri Munshi clarified that what was meant by the petitioners by way of not carrying ''Hajoori'' is that ''Hajoori'' is the person who will do the basic religious rituals during the time of religious homage as all the time Mahant is not expected to carry out the same which will not be befitting the dignity and stature of Mahant and hence ''Hajoori'' who is supposed to accompany Mahant is supposed to know religious aspects and scriptures, to which Shri Chauhan for respondent trustees replied by submitting that in fact the concept of ''Hajoori'' as sought to be canvassed is not supported by petitioners in any manner and the fact remains that Mahant traveling with the assistant (Hajoori) who will do all the religious rituals and activities prescribed under the religious scriptures.
Learned advocate for the respondent trustees invited this Court''s attention to identical affidavits filed by all the trustees placed on record to indicate to the effect that Mahant and trustees are following religious tenets of the trust and trust runs very smoothly for the betterment of its devotees and religious activities. Petitioners neither being interested nor being beneficiaries have no locus to file even the suit.
This Court is of the view that before adverting to rival contentions of learned advocates for the parties it would be most expedient to set out few indisputable aspects emerging from the rival contentions and material on record namely;
(1) The trust is operating from District Jamnagar and is registered under the order dated 25/5/1962. It is a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act. It was in fact established 375 years ago as stated by respondents in their affidavit on page-74 and the objects of the trust are enlisted there under which could be reproduced here under.
The objects of the respondent Trust are to provide social, religious and cultural service activities for the benefit of mankind. Its social service activities are spread in the field of education, health, human-welfare relief and rehabilitation. It conducts kinder garden, primary school, high school, higher secondary school and boarding house in the field of education. It runs public dispensary and mobile dispensary and Gaushala and organizes blood-donation camps, diagnostic camps for different diseases, post-polio operation camps etc. It arranges programme in health awareness, tree plantation, water preservation and helps in building of check dams, digging of small ponds in fields for water preservation etc. It sponsors environment oriented activities and participates in instant relief programmes for the affected people during natural calamities like flood ravage, cyclone, earthquake etc. The main income of the respondent Trust is donation and interest earned thereon etc. It has over 10 million followers and more than 600 temples and cultural centers spread all over the country.
(2) Petitioners have made averment in para-4 on page-8 inter alia contending that the trust had been registered in the year 1962 on the basis of the trust deed dated 18/12/1917 and document dated 23/5/1994 and it was registered by Maharaj Shri Dharmadasji Guru Dharidas as per application dated 25/12/1961. All the trust activities have been conducted in accordance with those documents and none had power, authority or right to bring about any change there under.
If one looks at the contention of both the sides, one may have an arguable discussion in answering the disturbing question qua trust''s power or authority in dealing with trust properties. One may not lose sight of the fact that this Court had an occasion to examine trust''s power and authority in dealing with immovable properties in the judgment of this Court in case of 5 Navtanpuri Dham-Khijda Mandir Trust and Others Vs. Anilbhai Bhagwanji Jobanputra and Others, . Therein this Court has unequivocally observed qua trustees power, activities and authorities in dealing with immovable properties and therefore this Court in this judgment would not be required to dwelve upon this aspect any more as the Court will have to accept the observations and findings recorded by this Court on the basis of pleadings and proceedings, which in my view have attained finality as the present petitioners petition being SLP (Civil) Nos. 15701-15702 of 2011. Therefore this Court need not go into this aspect in any manner in an elaborate way.
Page-143 is the list of properties listed and disposed of by the trustees which also is not disputed by anyone and it is rather an admitted position that not a single property of the trust is sold without prior permission u/s 36 of the Trusts Act and the competent authority under the Trusts Act. The decision in respect of Five Navtanpuri Dham Khijda Mandir Trust & Ors (supra) does not deal with the aspect of locus so far as the present petitioners are concerned and that question is kept open and for the same purport SLP is admitted by the Supreme Court.
The application came to be filed by present petitioners before the Joint Charity Commissioner invoking provision of Section 51 which was filed in year 2004. In this application also following contentions were raised for seeking permission to bring an action against the trust:
a) An allegation is made that by way of approval on the change report filed in the year 1988 the new objectives were added in the trust which could not have been done by way of change report.
There was change in the age limit of Mahant which was original 30 years which was changed and reduced to 25 years so as to accommodate the present incumbent.
The religious superscripts and traditions are not followed.
b) The founder Guru Maharaj Shri Dharmadasji Guru Dharidasji was donning only white cloths and this post continued since last Gadipati. The present incumbent is not donning the same and is started donning saffron colour clothes and spotting beard.
c) The respondent no. 1 could not have traveled without making along with him ''Hajoori'' but has in fact traveled abroad like USA, Nepal etc without ''Hajoori''.
d) The Symbol "Hand" is not supported by any Scriptures yet it is there in the crust of the temple.
e) Religious discourses with Parayana in local parlance is stopped within the precincts of the temple.
f) The provisions of living devotees and students have been encroached upon by Nepali subjects.
(3) Thus aforesaid are the grounds for bringing action which needs to be borne-in-mind as Joint Charity Commissioner has dealt with extensively and came to the conclusion that no case is made out for issuing any permission as could be seen from the observations and reasons imparted in the judgment dated 30/6/2006.
(4) Joint Charity Commissioner has recorded that the change report and objections to the change report which occurred way back before 12 to 15 years cannot be subject matter of challenge in section 50, however he has observed that if at all they are required to be subject matter of examination of scrutiny then section 70 or 70A is available to the petitioners so as not to bring action by way of suit u/s 50.
(5) Joint Charity Commissioner has however recorded that no single immovable property has been alienated or disposed of the trust without obtaining permission u/s 36 of the Trusts Act. The order in para-6 clearly contained that his predecessor in charge Joint Charity Commissioner BP Hadia had given permission vide order dated 25/3/2003 against which present petitioners approached Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by way of Appeal No. 21/2004 which came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 27/1/2006. Permission which was granted by the authority of the order u/s 36 in 2001 was also objected by the petitioners and he was given permission to offer and raise the bid which he did not raise and therefore finding is recorded that petitioner no. 1 did not seem to have been approaching with bonafide intentions.
The Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings on this aspect.
Against the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter the question arises as to whether the petitioners succeed in this petition and this Court quash and set aside the orders passed by Learned Joint Charity Commissioner as well as Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The close perusal of the order of learned Joint Charity Commissioner at the first instance may give away an impression that respondent no. 11 The Joint Charity Commissioner did not deal with the issues raised in its true spirit and letters but that alone in my view would not be sufficient reason for interfering with the order of Joint Charity Commissioner as the Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly observed relying upon decision of this Court in case of Hargovindbhai Dahyabhai Patel (supra) that Charity Commissioner is not precluded from recording his satisfaction qua granting permission to bring in suit as Charity Commissioner is primarily responsible for safeguarding trust and the interest of the trust properties. The Charity Commissioner has to answer questions raised by the petitioners for seeking permission, therefore question arise as to whether petitioners have made out a case for seeking permission. Unfortunately answer will have to be in negative as this Court is also of the considered view that petitioners though raised questions did not indicate any supporting material to support the questions raised in any manner. One can argue that this may lead into the realm of examining the matter on merits but as observed by this Court in case of Hargovindbhai Dahyabhai Patel (supra), Charity Commissioner has bounden duty to discharge when he has been confronted u/s 51 and therefore all and sundries cannot be permitted to bring an action against the trust or the trustees only on account of their serious apprehension qua breach of the trust or mismanagement and or squandering away property of the trust. The trust and trustees are in fact therefore required to be protected against such litigation and with that intention only the legislature has provided provision in form of Section 50 and 51. Section 51 therefore assumes importance in faltering out frivolous litigations and save the trust and trustees from the onslaught of such litigations as the public charity trusts are open to all those who are interested in the trust and if section 51 is not to be taken to its logical substance, then it will be reduced to mere a procedural aspect or procedure which will not effectively safeguard the trust or trustees from frivolous litigations and make it vulnerable to any type of sufferings and other pressures and lobbying. Therefore Section 51 has been interpreted by this Court wherein it is observed that the Charity Commission has fundamental duty to examine as to whether there existed prima facie case for granting permission. Though granting permission is definitely an administrative act but administrative act affecting the rights of the parties needs to be undertaken with due care and caution. Bearing this principles in mind, now if one examines the points raised by petitioners, then, one would safely conclude that so far as the aspect of alienating of the properties of the trust is concerned the same cannot be subject matter of any further scrutiny as the disposing of the property on account of valid permission of the Charity Commissioner has attained finality and under the guise of the permission the selling of the property on different dates under different permissions cannot be now permitted to be re-opened. Had the permission be granted then it would have amounted to re-open the issues which have attained finality which would not be in consonance with the provisions of law.
The other aspect to this is also required to be borne in mind inasmuch as the fact that the trustees so called lack of power in selling the property is the ground not now available to the petitioners, as this Court had an occasion to deal with in case of Five Navtanpur Dham-Khijda Mandir Trust (supra) and there is findings recorded in para-20 and 21 which would clearly indicate that this issue cannot be said to be now open for any further scrutiny atleast under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, this Court is not impressed by the averments and submissions canvassed on behalf of petitioners qua lack of interest in dealing with trust property or disposing of the property.
The question arises as to whether this finding of the Court preclude any scrutiny qua lack of authority and or justify for dealing with property, the answer would be NO. But it is very important to note that at the relevant time property was sold, the litigation if any could have been persuaded and brought to its logical conclusion. The list at page-143 indicate selling of this properties and sale has been attained finality. However, here is an attempt on the part of the petitioners to question those sales on a specious plea of lack of authority which this Court has concluded against the petitioners in terms of the judgment stated herein above and against which SLP preferred by the petitioners had been withdrawn. Therefore, on this aspect this Court now need not elaborately dwelve upon. Suffice it to say that the question qua lack of authority in dealing with or selling the property is no more now available to be raised.
This brings this Court to consider two more aspects of not following religious practices and deviating from age old practices in performance etc. This Court is of the view that these are the aspects which needed to be established with proper scriptural support. In absence of any support from scriptures, allegation of any deviation cannot be said to be correctly saying, especially when all the trustees have said on oath and except the present petitioners no one else has ever questioned this practice then the petitioners cannot be permitted to justify permission only on this ground.
So far as locus of the petitioners are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners have indicated that they cannot be denied locus as they are followers of the religion and therefore on this ground the Court has to accept the locus on the petitioners for filing proceedings. But that in itself should not be stretched so as to seek permission which is required to be granted. The permission is rightly rejected as the petitioners have otherwise also forfeited their claim as there existed a finding qua petitioners not being bonafide litigants or permission seeker. Therefore, such findings of the fact concurrently recorded by both the authorities persuade this Court not to disturb said concurrent findings of Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In the result, the petition being bereft of merits deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated. However, therefore shall be no order as to costs.