The present appeal is filed by Rev. Prakash Mathias Singhada, who is described as 'Presbyter-in-Charge, Christ Church, Mirzapur Road, Ahmedabad'. Later on, the memo of appeal is amended pursuant to order of the Court dated 19th January 2007 and the appellant is substituted by one Rev.Jagdish Kharadi, Presbyter-in- Charge, Christ Church, Mirzapur Road, Ahmedabad. 2. The present appeal is filed being aggrieved by judgement and order dated 26th September 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.14077 of 2003. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition as having found that no case is made out for interference at the hands of this Court. The relevant part of the judgement of the learned Single Judge, relevant for our purpose, is reproduced hereunder:
“After considering the aforesaid ratio, the Apex Court in the case of "Union of India and Others v. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another"(supra) quashed and set aside the decision of this Court in SCA No.3282/1999 and SCA No.3279/1999. Therefore, it appears that merely because the properties are situated in Gujarat cannot be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of confirmation of the jurisdiction and in case of exercise of statutory powers in connection with a Public Trust which is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, normally it would be the registration of such Trust which may assume importance for the purpose of jurisdiction. A Trust may have properties at different places in the Country, but for all those properties, the Charity Commissioner before whom the Trust is registered can have the jurisdiction. If such Charity Commissioner has taken decision, then in my view, the jurisdiction can be invoked of the High Court within whose territory such Charity Commissioner is functioning. Further it appears that the registration with the Charity Commissioner, Bombay in connection with the properties of the Trust is not cancelled but it has continued and it is the case of the petitioners that it is also registered with Dy. Charity Commissioner, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar but it is doubtful as to whether such subsequent additional registration would nullify or wipe out the effect of earlier registration with Charity Commissioner, Bombay which is not only still in existence but is operated by exercise of power under Section 36 by Charity Commissioner, Bombay. In any event, the petitioners are beneficiaries of the Trust and the jurisdiction cannot be invoked of the Court on the ground that since the beneficiaries are staying in the territory of this State, the part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As observed earlier, it is the decision of the Charity Commissioner, Bombay which is under challenge and if the Charity Commissioner, Bombay has taken decision under Section 36, the proper remedy for the petitioners would be to invoke the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court if they are aggrieved by the decision of the Charity Commissioner,Bombay and in any event, it cannot be said that the cause of action in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, in my opinion, the present petition cannot be maintained before this Court since the dispute raised in this petition or the challenge raised in this petition is falling outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of "Alka Synthetics Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India" (supra) is of no help to the petitioners because in the said case, the Company was registered and situated in Gujarat, the registered office of the company was also situated in Gujarat and the SEBI whose office was situated at Bombay had ordered for investigation and, therefore, the facts of the said case, in my view, would not be at par to the facts of the present case. As regards the decision of this Court in SCA No.9456/1999 is concerned, the perusal of the order as such shows that the order appears to be a consent order. In the present case, there is one additional aspect and the same is that the order passed by the Charity Commissioner is confirmed by the Bombay High Court as referred to hereinabove and, therefore, in my view when the decision of the Charity Commissioner, Bombay is confirmed by the Bombay High Court. This Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, even otherwise also would not be in a position to conveniently exercise the jurisdiction, because in any event, this Court would not have jurisdiction to modify, nullify, upset or even dilute the effect of the above referred judgement or order of the Bombay High Court.” (emphasis supplied)
3. Learned advocate Mr.Macwan emphatically argued that the LPA is already admitted by this Court by order dated 8th September 2008. Not only that by an order of even date passed in Civil Application No.8134 of 2006, the Court was pleased to issue rule and was pleased to grant interim stay of operation and execution of order dated 31st July 2000 made by the Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra. The learned advocate submitted that therefore, this appeal is required to be heard and allowed by this Court in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Nautam Praksh DGSVC, Vadtal and others Vs. K.K.
Thakkar and others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 330.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Macwan lost sight of the fact that while admitting the appeal and while granting interim stay of operation of execution of order dated 31st July 2000 made by the Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra, it was made clear that stay is granted only of the order produced at Annexure 'B' to the petition, and not of the judgement and order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Sate of Maharashtra, Mumbai, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'A'. Besides, the learned advocate for the appellants is also not able to state as to what steps are taken after an order was passed by this Court on 27th July 2007. On 27th July 2007, this Court (Coram: The Hon'ble the Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Akil Kureshi) passed order which reads as under:
“Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant submits that the property is situated at Ahmedabad, though Bombay High Court has exercised jurisdiction.
He prays time to approach the Bombay High Court for a review, or to approach the Hon'ble apex Court in respect of the subject matter. .. ..”
5. When the learned advocate for the appellants is confronted with this order dated 27.07.2007, the learned advocate only submitted that it is after the said order was passed, the LPA was heard by this Court and admited and stay was granted in the Civil Application and therefore, the aforesaid order has become insignificant. This Court is unable to accept the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellants as the learned Single Judge has categorically recorded in his judgment and order that, 'the order passed by the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai is confirmed by the Bombay High Court'. Once that is the position, any reference by this Court in this LPA for grant of reliefs prayed for in the Special Civil Application will amount to 'consideration of the order passed by the Bombay High Court'. This Court is conscious of the fact that this Court cannot and must not do that, because that can be done only by the Hon'ble the Apex Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant on 27.07.2007 rightly prayed for time to approach the Bombay High Court for review or to approach the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the subject matter. (emphasis supplied)
6. The fact that the LPA is admitted does not change the situation and grant of interim stay is also of Annexure 'B' to the petition only and not of Annexure 'A' to the petition.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court finds this appeal to be without any substance and the same is dismissed.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (N.V. ANJARIA, J.) karim