Manoj Dattatrye More reports in The Indian Express on October 25, 2022.
Mumbai joint charity commissioner has invited fresh bids for selling two plots of the Osho International Meditation Resort, located in Koregaon Park area of Pune city.
The rebel group of Osho followers have moved the Bombay High Court against the Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, which has invited fresh bids/offers for sale of two plots of the Osho International Meditation Resort located in Koregaon Park area of Pune city.
“We have challenged the public notice issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner’s office in the Bombay High Court through a writ petition. We have sought early hearing from a holiday court,” Sunil Mirpuri, a rebel disciple who has filed the petition in the HC, told The Indian Express on Tuesday.
Yogesh Thakkar, another rebel Osho follower, said, “We are shocked by the bid/offer for sale of the two properties of the Osho Commune. Our earlier objections regarding the sale of the same property by the Osho International Foundation is already pending before the Joint Charity’s Commissioner’s office. When one plea has not been decided or arguments heard, how can there be fresh bid or offer on the same plots of land?”
Ma Amrita Sadhana, spokesperson for the Osho International Meditation Resort, which is also known as Osho Commune, said, “The first bid was offered by the Osho International Foundation. We had received an offer for purchase of the two plots measuring 2.10 acre for Rs 107 crore. And now the second bid or offer has been invited by the Joint Charity Commissioner’s office. When the Charity Commissioner’s office thinks that the plot of land can be sold for higher amount, it can issue a second bid. And in this case, it has done so.”
Objecting to the second bid offer, the petitioner has argued that the Charity Commissioner has not taken into consideration the allegations against management of the Osho International Foundation, which is a registered charitable trust. “It has also not considered the fact that the high court had passed an order restraining the OIF from alienating the properties or creating third party interest without permission from the court.”
The petitioner argued that the Charity Commissioner “has not adjudicated upon the issue as to whether it was at all necessary for the trust to alienate the suit property nor has it heard any of the grievances of the Petitioner.”
The Joint Charity Commissioner’s office, the petitioner argued, has completely misconstrued its jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 36(1)(a). “It has failed to consider the fact that the Petitioner is objecting the sale of the suit property and not the consideration which is to be received by the trust,” petitioner said.
The Joint Charity Commissioner’s Office has erred in not appreciating that the objections were not to the quantum of the amount but the need for conducting the sale. “It is the contention of the petitioner that this property ought not to have been sold at all… The Joint Charity Commissioner has erred in not taking any action against the trustees and has also failed in its duty in not taking corrective steps for directing the cancellation of MoU and refund of the earnest money,” the petitioner stated.