THE rebel group of Osho followers has moved the Bombay High Court against the joint charity commissioner, Mumbai, who has invited fresh bids for selling 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 high court through a writ petition. We have sought an early hearing from a holiday court,” Sunil Mirpuri, a rebel disciple who has filed the petition, told The Indian Express 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. This is because our earlier objections regarding the sale of the same property by the Osho International Foundation, a trust which runs the ‘resort’, are already pending before the Joint Charity’s Commissioner’s office.”
When one plea has not been decided or arguments heard, how can there be a fresh bid or offer on the same plots of land? he asked.
Thakkar and a few other disciples in 2011 filed a complaint with the Charity Commissioner’s office against the alleged attempt of the Foundation to gift a part of its property to an obscure trust from Delhi.
Ma Amrita Sadhana, the spokesperson for the Osho International Meditation Resort, also known as Osho Commune, said, “The first bid was offered by the Osho International Foundation. We had received an offer for the purchase of the two plots admeasuring 2.10 acres for Rs 107 crore. And now the second bid or offer has been invited by the joint charity commissioner’s office.”
According to Sadhana, if the charity commissioner’s office thinks that the plot of land can be sold for a higher amount, it can issue a second bid.
Opposing the second bid offer, Sunil Mirpuri argued that the charity commissioner has not taken into account the allegations against the foundation, which is a registered charitable trust. “It has also not considered the fact that the high court had passed an order restraining the foundation from alienating the properties of creating third-party interest without permission from the court.”
The joint charity commissioner has suo motu invited fresh bids despite the fact that the respondent trust has not even prayed for the same, the petitioner said.
Mirpuri stated that the joint 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 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 to the sale of the suit property,” Mirpuri stated in the petition.
“The objection was to the need for conducting the sale. It is the contention of the petitioner that this property ought not to have been sold at all which was not the grievance of the petitioner that the property has been sold for a lesser amount. 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.
