Disclosure of material facts and protection of trust interest justified refusal of relief and reconsideration of bids for trust property.

Suppression of a material fact by parties seeking discretionary relief justified refusal of special leave, because a litigant must disclose all relevant facts and cannot leave the Court to discover an earlier final order affecting the dispute. In relation to alienation of trust immovable property, the Court held that Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 requires the trust's interest, benefit or protection to govern the process. On the facts, the High Court was justified in directing reconsideration of all bids and in preferring the course likely to secure the best price for the trust, and the Charity Commissioner was required to proceed accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether suppression of a material fact by the petitioners justified refusal of special leave; (ii) whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the Charity Commissioner to consider all bids and secure the best price for trust property.

Issue (i): Suppression of a material fact bearing on the dispute was established. A litigant must disclose all material facts and cannot leave it to the Court to discover what is relevant. Non-disclosure of an earlier final order affecting the controversy was treated as a serious defect in the petitioners' case.

Conclusion: Special leave was declined on account of suppression of a material fact.

Issue (ii): Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 permits alienation of trust immovable property only with regard to the interest, benefit or protection of the trust. In the facts, the trustees and petitioners had repeatedly altered their position, third-party bids had emerged, and the High Court was justified in moulding relief to protect the trust's interest by requiring consideration of all bids and by preferring the course likely to secure the maximum price.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction was upheld and the Charity Commissioner was required to reconsider the sale in the manner directed.

Final Conclusion: The decision left the trust property to be dealt with afresh under the supervisory directions, with the petitioners denied relief and the trust's commercial interest protected through reconsideration of bids.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant seeking discretionary relief must disclose all material facts, and in matters involving alienation of trust property the controlling consideration is the protection of the trust's interest, including securing the best obtainable price, even if relief must be moulded to that end.

---