908-WP-3321-2020.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3321 OF 2020 Balasaheb Yadavrao Magar VERSUS Sarubai Nagnath Mathwale and Anr *** • Mr. D. B. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner • Mr. U. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 • Mr. S. G. Sangle, Addl GP for the Respondent No. 3/State *** CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J DATE : SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 PER COURT : 1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This Petition is for recalling of order dated 19.11.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12210/2019. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 23.08.2010 Respondents published tender notice in Daily Dainik Godatir Samachar, Nanded for sale of the subject property. It is his further submission that the Petitioner was highest bidder and has deposited the part consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Respondents. According to the Petitioner, on account of Umesh PAGE 1 OF 9 2025:BHC-AUG:26795 908-WP-3321-2020.odt certain technical difficulties in the record of rights, the transaction could not be completed. It is claimed that Respondents filed Application bearing Inquiry No. 09/2010 seeking permission for sale, which came to be allowed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad (for short ‘JCC’) by order dated 23.02.2011. On 11.03.2015, however, another Application came to be filed by Respondents being Application No. 1132/2014 under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’), without joining Petitioner as party therein. This application was allowed. Respondents filed fresh Application, which came to be rejected by JCC by order dated 05.05.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petition bearing No. 12210/2019 was filed by the Respondents wherein the order impugned in this Petition came to be passed. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the order obtained from this Court on 19.11.2019 is by playing fraud and by suppression of material facts. It is his contention that since the Petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of the purchase of property of the Trust, he was necessary party to the proceedings Umesh PAGE 2 OF 9 908-WP-3321-2020.odt filed before JCC. It is his further submission that once there was a transaction in respect of agreement to sale property of trust under the Petitioner, it was not open for the Respondents to prefer any application for seeking permission of the sale of said property from JCC. To support his submissions about recall of order impugned, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd, (1996) 5 SCC 550 wherein it is held that all the Courts have inherent powers for recall the order, if it is obtained by playing fraud or misrepresentation. 5. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent supported the impugned order. It is his contention that all the facts necessary for the purpose of decision of the Application were averred not only in the original application filed before JCC but also in Writ Petition filed before this Court. It is his submission that the original transaction relates back to year 2010 and since there was no further progress therein, it was open for the Respondents to make an application for the sale of the said property again. He has disputed Umesh PAGE 3 OF 9 908-WP-3321-2020.odt deposit of any part consideration by Petitioner with Respondents. It is argued that Petitioner had not taken any steps for seeking specific performance of contract. 6. In order to appreciate the contention sought to be raised by the Petitioner, it is necessary to see as to what order is passed by this Court, which is impugned in this Petition. Clause No. 7 of the said order is reproduced below reads thus: 7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05/05/2016 is quashed and set aside and the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh application before the respondent for seeking permission to dispose off the said property. The respondent shall ensure that the procedure for such sale is strictly followed. The above order clearly indicates that the order passed by the JCC dated 05.05.2016 was quashed and set aside with liberty to the Petitioner to file fresh application before JCC for seeking permission to dispose of the said property. 7. Now the question arises as to whether the said order has been obtained by suppression of any fact or by playing fraud upon the Court. It is, therefore, Umesh PAGE 4 OF 9 908-WP-3321-2020.odt necessary to see the pleadings in the original application under Section 36(1)(a & b) of the Act. The application filed before the JCC contains following pleadings: vls dh] laLFkkps ,dwu 3 gsDVj 52 vkj tehu th dh tquk xV dzekad 134 o uohu xV dzekax 133 e/;s vkgs- lnjhy tehu fodzh dj.ksckcr foÜoLrkauh lnjhy vtZ nk[ky dsyk gksrk- vls dh] vtZ dzekad 9@2010 e/khy dkj.ks la;qDrhd okVY;keqGs o laLFkkups fgr y{kkr ?ksowu ekufu; U;k;ky;kus vkns’k ikjhr dsyk gksrk- R;k vkns’kUo;s Jh ckGklkgsc ;knojko exj ;kauk 451000@& izrh ,dj ;k eqY;kus fodzh dj.;kph ijokuxh ekuuh; U;k;ky;kus fnyh gksrh- ijarw lnjhy Jh ckGklkgsc ;knojko exj ;kauh foghr eqnrhy o vkti;Zar ;klaca/kh dqByhgh dk;Zokgh dsysyh ukgh- tehu fodzh dj.kaps 9@10 e/khy dkj.k vkt jksth tSls Fks vkgs o lnjhy tehu fodzh dj.ks vR;ko’;d vkgs- vls dh] lnjhy vtZ nk[ky dj.;kl foyac >kyk dkj.k dh] foÜoLr eaMG Jh ckGklkgsc ;knojko exj ;kapsoj voyacwu jkghys o R;keqGs gk vtZ dj.;kl m’khj >kyk- lnjhy m’khj >kY;kcÌy {kek djkoh- ijarw foÜoLr laLFksps fgr y{kkr ?ksowu gk vtZ nk[ky dsyk vkgs- vls dh] nsxyqj ;sFkhy Jh ekjksrh jkepanz fpVeksxjs ;kauh lnjhy tkxk ok<ho njkus fodr ?ks.;kph r;kjh n’kZfoyh vkgs Umesh PAGE 5 OF 9 908-WP-3321-2020.odt o brj fuohnk/kkjd tkxk ?ks.;kl r;kj ukghr- It is thus clear from the said averments that the Respondents have not suppressed any fact from JCC. 8. Apart from this, even in the Petition, particularly in paragraph 5, these facts are specifically being brought to the notice of this Court, which reads thus: 5. The petitioners state and submit that, thereafter as the application was allowed, the petitioner was continuously making request to said Mr. Magar to purchase the said land in view of a permission given by respondent No.1. But, Mr. Magar by quoting some or other reasons had started to avoid purchasing the said land. When the petitioners tried to convince him for the purchase, by pointing out dilapidated condition of the temple, he started to take undue advantage of the situation and asked for the land at the price of 40 thousand per acre. It is pertinent to know here that, despite of being agreed and undertaking to purchase the said land before the respondent No.1 Mr. Magar had taken a U-turn. Due to this the trust had not left with any other option and construed to find out another person to purchase the land at reasonable price. Thus, it is clear that this is not the case wherein there is any suppression of fact much less any Umesh PAGE 6 OF 9 908-WP-3321-2020.odt fraud being played upon this Court. 9. It is pertinent to note that original proceedings are filed under Section 36 of the Act and since in the said proceedings no third party was required to be joined from seeking permission from the JCC, there was no need to join the Petitioner as a party Respondent therein. Consequently, there was no occasion for the Respondents to join the present Petitioner as party Respondent to the Writ Petition No. 12210/2019. 10. A specific query is made to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to point out the position of law with regard to joining of third party to the application under Section 36 of the Act. He was unable to point out any such provision or any binding precedent to accept his contention. 11. It would now be necessary to see as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner as claimed. There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the proposition of law that if the Trust finds that the earlier transaction does not take place for any reason, the Trust cannot be expected not to take Umesh PAGE 7 OF 9 908-WP-3321-2020.odt further steps in the interest of Trust. There cannot be an embargo for trust to satisfy the Charity Commissioner of the necessarily to sale property and justify the same in the proceeding under Section 36 of the Act. It was thus open for the Trust to move another application before JCC seeking permission for the sale of the property in the interest of the Trust and there could not be any bar for filing of such application. In such application, JCC was required to satisfy himself as to the need/necessity of sale of property in the interest of Trust. In the Petition, therefore, what this Court has done by passing impugned order it to grant liberty to file fresh application before JCC in this regard, which is in the tune of the relevant provisions of the Act. 12. The said order being in consonance with law, cannot be construed as obstruction being created in exercise of any rights of the Petitioner. It would also be relevant to note that alleged transaction between the Petitioner and Respondents is of year 2010 and till date there is no progress therein. A specific query was made to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to Umesh PAGE 8 OF 9 908-WP-3321-2020.odt whether if it is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents have rights or failed to execute sale deed in spite of permission being granted by the JCC, any suit for specific performance of contract is filed. The answer to the said query is in negative. This admission supports case of Respondents about Petitioner having not taken steps for execution of sale deed before the Court of law. 13. It is thus clear that having regard to the nature of proceeding under Section 36 of the Act, the order passed by this Court has no effect on the rights of the parties. It was for the parties to take steps independently, if provided by law, to get sale deed executed from the Trust. Since the order impugned is neither obtained by misrepresentation or fraud nor it affects the rights of the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever, no case is made out for recalling the order. 14. As a result of above discussion, there is no merit in the Petition. Petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Umesh PAGE 9 OF 9