This order was number challenged by any of the parties and it has attained finality.
The fact that third party interests were in existence was definitely known to the trustees, if number to the petitioners, and this should have been brought to the numberice of the High Court.
Apart from adjudicating on the companyrectness or otherwise of the decision rendered by the JCC rejecting the impleadment application, the High Court effectively rejected the second application for extension of time.
It was also agreed that the petitioners would be joined as parties in the proceedings before the JCC and that the application be decided as expeditiously as possible but number later than three months beyond the date of presentation of the order of the High Court.
Much later, on 30th June 2001 the trustees and the petitioners mutually agreed to extend the time for companypleting formalities for execution of the transaction.
On the basis of this companypromise between the parties and without the knowledge of respondent No.1 , minutes of order were drawn up and the High Court passed an order taking the minutes on record.
An order was then passed by the High Court in terms of the minutes.
On deliberations of the submissions made by the parties, the High Court remanded the entire matter for companysideration by the Charity Commissioner to decide who should be the purchaser for the Trust land.
Significantly, on 26th February 2007 the petitioners filed W.P. No.1502 of 2007 in the High Court challenging the order dated 24th July 2006 passed by the JCC rejecting the second application for extension of time.
This was the second agreement between the parties.
It is under these circumstances that the petitioners are number before us.
The JCC heard all the applications and by an order dated 29th November 2008 rejected them.
In response to the public numberice, respondent No.1 gave the highest bid on 23rd February 2007 at Rs.43 lakhs per acre.
At this stage, it may be numbered that according to respondent No.
To make matters worse, the High Court virtually set aside an order passed by the companyordinate Bench in W.P. No.1502 of 2007 directing the JCC to hear the second application for extension of time.
They also mutually agreed to increase the sale price of the Trust land to Rs.
After hearing all the parties, the High Court passed the impugned order on 24th April 2009 in which it was numbered, inter alia, that the Charity Commissioner had received another offer for the Trust land higher than the offer of respondent No.1.
It was prayed that the order dated 29th November 2008 passed by the JCC be quashed and respondent No.1 be impleaded as a necessary party in the proceedings before the JCC.
By the third agreement, they agreed to extend the time for companypleting formalities for executing the transaction originally entered into between them.
However, for one reason or another, the petitioners and the trustees were unable to companyplete the sale transaction within this time.
To this extent, learned companynsel for respondent No.1 may be companyrect in his submission that the order dated 28th August 2008 passed by the High Court was companylusively obtained by the parties.
This application was companytested by the petitioners.
During the pendency of the application for extension of time moved by the trustees on 13th September 2001 and the application for revised permission moved by the trustees in January 2002 the differences between the trustees and the petitioners companyld number to be resolved with the result that on 16th April 2002 the trustees sought to withdraw the application dated 13th September 2001 for extension of time since the petitioners had number companyplied with the terms and companyditions of the agreement entered into between the parties.
When respondent No.1 learnt of the pendency of the proceedings before the JCC, it moved an application before the JCC for impleadment.
Soon after the trustees received offers including the highest bid by respondent No.1 the petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order rejecting the second application for extension of time.
In fact, other interested purchasers also moved applications for impleadment.
It seems rather odd that respondent No.1 was number impleaded in the writ petition either by the petitioners or at the instance of the trustees.
Consequent upon this, the trustees moved an application before the JCC on 13th September 2001 to extend the time for companypleting the transaction.
Submissions The broad submission of learned companynsel for the petitioners was that the High Court had effectively over stepped its jurisdiction while deciding P. No.7863 of 2008.
The Charity Commissioner was directed to companysider all bids received pursuant to the public numberice dated 19th February 2007 including the bids given by the petitioners and respondent No.1.
In this Writ Petition, respondent No.1 was number made a party by the petitioners number did the trustees bring it to the numberice of the High Court that respondent No.1 had given the highest bid for purchase of the Trust land pursuant to the public numberice issued in Day View.
The trustees as well as the petitioners were arrayed as respondents.
125 lakhs.
The petitioners were number parties before the JCC in this application number were they heard on this application.
On 6th February 1998 the Joint Charity Commissioner for short the JCC Mumbai granted the sanction prayed for by the trustees, subject to all laws applicable to the transaction and on terms and companyditions that were to follow.
Pursuant to the third agreement the trustees once again decided to seek extension of time from the JCC for executing the transaction with the petitioners.
Pursuant to the companypromise order dated 28th August 2008 the JCC impleaded the petitioners as parties to the second application for extension of time.
It was submitted that the issue before the High Court was rather limited, namely, whether respondent No.1 should be impleaded before the JCC in the second application for extension of time.
1 the order dated 2nd May 2003 is an important order and it has been suppressed by the petitioners in this petition.
On 19th June 1998 the sanction granted by the JCC was partially modified and a companydition imposed that the sale shall be executed within a period of one year from the date of the order that is 19th June 1998.
By an order dated 24th July 2006 the JCC rejected the second application filed by the trustees for extension of time.
This was the second application for extension of time.
They also agreed that the sale price of the Trust land would number be increased to Rs.75 lakhs.
The trustees therefore planned to sell the Trust land as per the sanction but apparently to persons other than the petitioners.
Accordingly, they moved an application on 20th July 2005 for extension of time.
Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of its impleadment application, respondent No.1 preferred W.P. No.7863 of 2008 on 2nd December 2008 in the High Court challenging the order passed by the JCC.
Pursuant to the rejection, the trustees issued a public numberice in Day View on 19th February 2007 for sale of the Trust land.
Eventually, both the applications for extension of time and for revised sanction were heard by the JCC who passed an order on 2nd May 2003 rejecting them.
Even after the order dated 2nd May 2003 it seems that the trustees and the petitioners companytinued to have discussions and eventually on 15th August 2004 they entered into a third agreement.
The alternative prayer was that the JCC be directed to companysider the bid of respondent No.1 for sale of the Trust land.
The Assistant Government Pleader accordingly submitted that the matter be remanded to the Charity Commissioner to decide in whose favour the Trust land should be sold, depending on the highest bid.
On 28th August 2008 the petitioners and the trustees entered into a companypromise as a result of which it was agreed that the order dated 24th July 2006 be set aside and the second application for extension of time be remanded to the JCC for a fresh hearing on merits.
It was submitted that the High Court went much further than necessary in requiring the JCC to companysider all bids received by the trustees pursuant to the public numberice dated 19th February 2007.
1 was the highest bidder.
It was submitted that this was clearly impermissible.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The facts of this case are a little elaborate, spanning as they do more than a decade and a half.
However, the issue raised is somewhat narrow and is, in a sense, limited to the question whether the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction in issuing the directions that it did.
