PRAVINBHAI D DOSHI (DELETED AS PER JUDGMENT DT. 7.9.26) v. SHRI KUNDKUND KAHAN PARAMARTHIK TRUST, SONGADH
LPA/673/2026 · 2026-09-07
D N Ray, Sunita Agarwal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3596 (GUJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3596 (GUJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
C/LPA/673/2026(GJHC240515172026) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 673 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/17851/2023 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 673 of 2026 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 677 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5866 of 2023 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 677 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5866 of 2023 ====================================== PRAVINBHAI D DOSHI & ANR. Versus SHRI KUNDKUND KAHAN PARAMARTHIK TRUST, SONGADH & ORS. ====================================== Appearance:
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR MG NAGARKAR(496) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR(7150) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR KANAN R JADEJA(8999) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SAURABH SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR VISHAL T. PATEL(6518) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 ======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
C/LPA/673/2026(GJHC240515172026) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026 Date : 07/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. A draft amendment in Letters Patent Appeal No.673 of 2026 has been moved to bring on record that after presentation of the present appeal on 10.07.2026, appellant No.1 has died on 10.08.2026 and hence his name be deleted from the array of parties. The draft amendment is hereby allowed. Let the necessary incorporation be made in the array of parties within a period of three days.
2. Both the appeals are arising out of the common
judgment and order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge and hence they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment with the consent of learned Senior Counsels for the parties.
3. Having heard learned Senior Counsels for the parties and perused the record, pertinent is to note that the writ petitions have been filed by the so called trustees and devotees of the respondent No.3 Trust to challenge an order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in a proceeding under Section 41A of the Gujarat Public Trust Act’ 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 1950’) initiated on the application of respondent No.1.
4. A prayer has also been made to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the resolution dated
C/LPA/673/2026(GJHC240515172026) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026 10.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.3-Trust to implement the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner dated
20.07.2021.
5. From the averments made in the writ petitions and the
arguments made before the learned Single Judge, it may be noted that it was submitted before the learned Single Judge by the original petitioner that they have interest in the activities of respondent No.3 Trust and are beneficiaries of the trust. It is also the case of one of the petitioner that he has designed the project, which was accepted by respondent No.3 but changed at the instance of respondent No.1 by proposing to create an electronic digital Museum project which was opposed by the petitioner. 6. The contention is that the activities of respondent No.3 Trust and the resolution passed by it to accept the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner is against the object and purpose of the trust and is running against the interest of the trust. The contention is that at the instance of respondent No.1, an unregistered agreement had been executed whereby a large amount of the trust money has been paid to respondent No.1 without passing any resolution. The allegations in the writ petitions are, thus, about the alleged illegal activities of the trust in awarding project to respondent No.1 and paying money from the funds. 7. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner to issue direction to
C/LPA/673/2026(GJHC240515172026) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026 respondent No.3 Trust to carry out the project as awarded to the respondent No.1 by way of an agreement and the resolution of the trust to accept the said order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. 8. It seems that in two writ petitions, one of the petitioner though is a trustee, but another petitioner claim to be a beneficiary who stated to have designed the project, which has not been approved by the trust. The claim of both the petitioners, however, is that the activities of the trust are not in the interest of the trust. For the said issue, in our considered opinion, appropriate course of action for the trustees or the beneficiaries would be to approach the Charity Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of Act’ 1950, as any dispute in relation to such activities of the trust would require a factual inquiry. 9.
We, therefore, do not find any good ground to entertain the present appeals challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner and the resolution of the respondent No.3 Trust. However, it is clarified that, in case, the original petitioners/appellants herein approach the Joint Charity Commissioner raising any dispute with regard to functioning/working/activities of the respondent No.3 Trust or in relation to the project assigned to respondent No.1, in accordance with the provisions of the Act’ 1950, the order passed by the learned Single Judge of dismissal of the writ petitions will not come in the way of the original
C/LPA/673/2026(GJHC240515172026) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026 petitioners/applicants. 10. With the above, the present set of Appeals stand dismissed being devoid of merits, while keeping all rights and
contentions of the parties to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.
11. No order as to costs. Connected Civil Applications would not survive and shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.) (D.N.RAY, J.) siji Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: PILLAI SHRIJIT P(HC00174), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/09/2026 12:59:29