RAMCHANDRA GOVERDHAN PANDIT versus CHARITY COMMISSIONER OF STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 1083 · Decided: 21-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. KHALID · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAMCHANDRA GOVERDHAN PANDIT 
A 
v. 
CHARITY COMMISSIONER OF STATE OF GUJARAT 
i 
APRIL 21, 1987 
[V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
8 
" 
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950-Section 72-Setting aside of 
.,.l. 
order of Charity Commissioner by District Court-Whether exercise of 
appellate or revisionary jurisdiction-Whether lea~e of Single judge 
necessary for filing Letters Patent Appeal. 
- ;. 
c 
Letters Patent of Bombay High Court-Clause 15-Appeal 
against order of Single Judge under Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950, 
s. 72-Leave of Judge-Necessity for. 
~ 
On suo motu enquiry conducted against the appellant with regard 
to the nature of the properties in question, the Deputy Charity Commis· D 
sioner held that the properties were of a public trust. The appellant's 
appeal before the Charity Commissioner was dismissed. An application 
filed under s. 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was also dismls-. 
sed by the City Civil Court. The First Appeal filed in the High Court 
was dismissed by a Single Judge. 
E 
_,_ 
In the Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of the appellant it was 
-
contended: that s. 72(1) speaks only of an application to the Court to set 
asi.de the decision of the Charity Commissioner, and it does not speak of 
an appeal; that while s. 70 and 71 use the word "appeal" and that the 
' 
proceedings under s. 72 were not in the nature of an appeal and that, 
..... 
therefore. when the District Court exercised its jurisdiction it did not 
F 
exercise an appellate jurisdiction but a special jurisdiction under ·the 
. ....., 
section • 
The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that it was not 
maintainable since the requisite certificate under clause 15 of Letters 
G 
Patent Appeal was not obtained by the appellant, that though the well 
known word "appeal" was not used in s. 72, the absence of tbat word 
., 
cannot be regarded as determinative of the nature of the proceedings, 
and that the jurisdiction that the District Court is exercising under s. 72 
was appellate jurisdiction. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
H 
1083 
A 
B 
c 
1084 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1987] 2 S.C.R. 
HELD: 1.1 The power of the District Court In exercising Juris· 
diction under s. 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, is a plenary 
power. It is true that the Commissioner is not subordinate to the 
District Court bur the District Court hes powers to correet, modify, 
review or set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, All the 
characteristics of an appeal and all the powers of an appellate Court Ell'e 
available to the District Court while deciding an application under 
s. 72. (1089D·El 
1.2 The proceedings before the District Court u11der s, 72(1) a1re 
in the nature of an appeal and that District court exercises appellalte 
jurisdiction while disposing of a matter under s. 72(1), (IOii!il!:•ill 
1.3 The absence of the word "appeal" his. 72(i) does not 1nak1e 
any difference. (I089C) 
Hiragar Dayagar v. Ratanlal, (19721 13 G,L,lt. tlit ilild (1956.I 
58 Bombay Law Reporter 894 approved and AIR 1974, Bombay 40, 
D disapproved. 
)\ -
\ 
2. Consequently, the Single Judge oi'ihe High Court while decid· 
ing the appeal from the order of the District Court deals with a matter 
made by the District Judge in the exercise of a appellate jurisdiction by 
a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and hence 1-
E 
clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal is directly attracted, (1089F·G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 1594 
of 1973. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.1972 of the Gujarat 
F 
High Court in L.P.A. No. 72 of 1971. 
M.V. Goswami for the Appellant. 
M.N. Shroff, P.C. Kapur and T. Sridharan for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHALID, J. This appeal is by special leave granted by this 
Court on 30.10.1973 against the judgment and order of the High Court 
of Gujarat dated 19.9.1972 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 72 of 
1971. The facts necessary in brief for disposal of the appeal are as 
H hereunder: 
-f 
R.G. PANDIT v. CHARITY COMMR. [KHALID, J.I 
1085 
The Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad Region appoin· A 
ted under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 (for short 'the Act') 
started suo motu enquiry . under the Act against the appellant as 
Enquiry No. 578 of 1958 with regard to the nature-of the properties 
involved in the appeal. The Deputy Charity Commissioner held by his 
order dated 20.10.1960 that the properties were of a public trust. 
Aggrieved by this order,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.