1.0 The petitioner herein has prayed for a direction to quash and set aside the decision taken by the respondent No. 3, Minister for Agriculture and Cooperation on the proposals submitted by the petitioner No. 1 Market Committee for giving different donation to different institutions on 3.5.2012 and further prayed to direct the respondent authorities to accord sanction to various proposals submitted by the petitioner No. 1 Market Committee.
2.0 The petitioner No. 1 is a market committee constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 33(11A) of the Act stipulates for donation of an amount not exceeding 20 per cent of the Market Committee Fund (excluding the loans and funds raised or obtained for any specific purpose) for the charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 with the previous approval of the State Government and subject to such conditions, as it may impose.
2.1 In view of the above provisions, the Market Committee has submitted proposals for getting sanction under the aforesaid section, after passing necessary resolution. The proposals were for giving donation to different institutions. However the respondent authority made an endorsement to produce the proposal for agricultural purpose. Against the said decision the present petition has been filed.
3.0 Learned Advocated for the petitioner submitted that the endorsement made by the respondent No.3 is contrary to the provisions of Section 33(11A) of the Act. According to him the Market Committee has submitted three different proposals at Annexures C,D & E to the petition, and the respondent authorities by clubbing all the three proposals, have erroneously taken a decision. According to him each proposal was for an amount less than Rs. 20 lacs and the respondent authorities cannot club the same together for considering to sanction the same. He further submitted that the donation is required to be made to the charitable institutions which are running for public purposes.
4.0 Learned Advocate further submitted that the respondent authority has accorded sanction under the said provisions of the Act to different other Market Committees and only in the case of present petitioner no decision has been taken which amounts hostile discrimination
5.0 Learned Advocate for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that certain details were sought from the petitioner Market Committee which are not provided and on receipt of such details appropriate decision will be taken in due course.
6.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the records certain aspects are not in dispute. The petitioner Committee has made three different proposals and all the three proposals are for less than Rs. 20 lacs. Though the proposals were sent long back no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities and no plausible explanation has been afforded for such delay.
7.0 Section 33 (11A) reads as under: “Section 33(11A) : Donation of an amount not exceeding twenty per cent of the Market Committee Fund (excluding the loans and funds raised or obtained for any specific purpose) for the charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 with the previous approval of the State Government and subject to such conditions, as it may impose”.
8.0 According to the above provision donation of an amount not exceeding 20 per cent of the Market Committee Fund can be given for the charitable purpose, with the previous approval of the State Government. The Director of the Market Committee has recommended to accord sanction to the proposals submitted by the petitioner No. 1 Market Committee. Donation sought to be made is as per the provisions of the Act and no lacuna has been pointed out by the government in such proposals. Such proposals are also not in violation of the provisions of Charitable Endowments Act, 1890. The Respondent No. 3 has made endorsement as early as on 3.5.2012 but till this date the same is not forwarded to the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the respondent authority has accorded sanction under the aforesaid section to other different Market Committees but in the case of the petitioner no decision has been taken.
9.0 Under section 33(11A) of the Act, the donation is required to be made to the charitable institutions which are running for public purposes and the trusts registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the societies registered under the Society Registration Act. The respondent authority cannot insist for any proposal beyond the scope of section 33(11A) of the Act. It is required to be noted that the amount paid by way of donation is always governed by the Act.
10.0 Though, affidavit in reply has been filed, the only fact stated therein is that certain details were called for and decision will be taken in due course. Looking to the facts of the case there is unreasonable delay in the matter and it appears that there is deliberate attempt for not granting the proposals of the petitioner. Nothing is pointed out by the respondent that the proposals made by the petitioner are against the provisions of the Act and further details are required. It is further required to be noted in identical cases proposals were sanctioned.
11.0 In view of the above I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is required to be accepted. Accordingly the impugned decision is quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to accord sanction to the proposals submitted by the petitioner No. 1 Market Committee at the earliest. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs, Direct service is permitted .
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*