Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Chenchu Rami Reddy & Anr vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 1 April, 1986
In Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of A.P.,
(1986) 3 SCC 391 the Apex Court has held:
Shri Ambadevi Sanstha vs Joint Charity Commissioner on 25 September, 2018
26) In my view, the Joint Charity Commissioner ought to have
applied his mind atleast to the contents of the application before passing an
order for inviting fresh bids in a mechanical manner. If he was satisfed that
inviting of fresh bids was warranted in the present case, he ought to have
recorded reasons for doing so. In absence of recording of reasons for inviting
fresh bids, the cryptic order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner does
not inspire confdence. At the same time, though the order dated 24 July
2023 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner does not show application of
_____Page No. 17 of 21____
6 May 2024
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2024 17:11:59 :::
Neeta Sawant WPL-3739-2024-FC.docx
mind, it clearly appears that there was considerable delay on the part of
Respondent No.2-Trust in seeking sanction under Section 36(1)(a) for
alienation of the Trust property. This aspect is considered by the Apex
Court in Shri Ambadevi Sanstha (supra). As observed above, the decision to
alienate the property was taken in January 2019 and the entire bidding
process was complete by 1 April 2019. However, the application for seeking
sanction under Section 36(1)(a) was fled belatedly on 28 June 2023 i.e. after
four long years. The Trust pleaded following reasons for delay in fling of
application in para-18:
The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
M/S. Darshan Jayant Builder And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 26 November, 2018
(ii) The party who comes forward and submits his ofer directly
before the Charity Commissioner and complies with other
requirements as may be laid down by the Charity Commissioner in a
pending application under section 36 of the said Act of 1950 has a
locus standi to challenge the fnal order passed in a proceeding under
section 36. However, the scope of the challenge will be limited as
indicated in paragraph 29 above.
1