NAUTAM PRAKASH D.G.S.V.C., VADTAL AND ORS. versus K.K. THAKKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 02-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NAUTAM PRAKASH D.G.S.V.C., VADTAL AND ORS. 
v. 
K.K. THAKKAR AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 2006 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Bombay Statutory Corporations (Regional Act XX! of 1960)-Section 
4/A---Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional Reorganisation) Order, 1960--
Clauses 4(b) and (c), 5 and 6(a) & (b)--Trust properties registered initially in 
C State of Bombay-After bifurcation of the State of Bombay, its properties 
came to be situated in State of Gujarat and Maharashtra-Trust filed statement 
of accounts and other documents with Charity Commissioner of Gujarat for 
its properties situated in Gujarat-Charity Commissioner of Bombay issued 
directions under the Act to the Tr:ist relating to all its properties including 
D those situated in State of Gujarat-Correctness of the Jurisdiction of the 
Commissioner of Maharashtra with respect to properties situated in State of 
Gujarat-Held, under the provisions of the Act and the Order, the jurisdiction 
of the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra is confined only to the properties 
situated within the State of Maharashtra-Doctrine of lex-sites applied-
Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960--Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 
E 
High Court of Bombay framed a scheme for management of the temples 
of appellant-religious trust. Thereafter, the appellant came to be governed by 
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The appellant obtained a certificate of 
registration from Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bombay under the Act. 
After bifurcation of the State of Bombay into State of Maharashtra and State 
F of Gujarat under the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, the properties of the 
appellant came to be situated in both the States. The appellant applied for and 
obtained a certificate of registration from Assistant Charity Commissioner, 
Bombay for the properties situated in the State of Maharashtra. The appellant 
then filed statements of accounts before the Charity Commissioner, Bombay 
G office for some years. The appellant then filed an application for modification 
of the scheme before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court allowed the 
application and modified the scheme. Thereafter, the appellant filed statement 
of accounts and other documents with Assistant Charity Commissioner, 
Gujarat from time to time. 
H 
646 
NAUTAMPRAKASHD.G.S.V.C, VADTALv. K.K. THAKKAR. 
647 
Respondent no.I filed an application before the Assistant Charity A 
Commissioner, Bombay to issue directions to the appellant under section 41A 
of the Bombay Statutory Corporations (Regional Act XXI of 1960). The 
Commissioner allowed the application by issuing certain directions relating 
to all its properties including those situated in State of Gujarat. The appellant 
filed a Writ Petition challenging the constitutionality of the Act of 1960 and 
Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional Reorganisation) Order, 1960 before B 
Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the 
ground that the appellant cannot challenge the Act and the Order since it 
filed statement of accounts and other documents for some years under the 
Act and the Order for all its properties. 
Allowing the appeal, 
c 
HELD: I.I. Under the provisions of Bombay Statutory Corporation 
(Regional Act XXI of 1960) and Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional 
Reorganisation) Order, 1960, the Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, 
Bombay was confined only to the properties situated within the State of D 
Maharashtra. Having regard to the doctrine of lex-sites, the said authority 
could not have assumed jurisdiction in respect of the entire trust. The 
Assistant Charity Commissioner derived his jurisdiction from the provisions 
of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Upon reorganisation of the State, he 
had a limited jurisdiction to exercise. All the provisions of the said Act were 
indisputably also not applicable to both the State of Maharashtra and State of E 
Gujarat. [654-D-F( 
1.2. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioners of Bombay and 
State of Gujarat is required to be determined primarily on a construction of 
Clauses 4(b) and 4(c) of the Order. Clause 4(c) creates a legal fiction in terms F 
whereof the trust shall be deemed to be registered in Gujarat region 
whereafter no other or further enquiry is required to be conducted. The trust 
was already registered having its registered office at Baroda. The said 
registration, therefore, continued to have force. [655-C-E] 
3. In terms of Clause 4(b) of the Order,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.