Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4593-4594 OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos. 28021-28022 OF 2010
Decided On : 17-04-2014
(b) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – Appellant appearing before Assistant Commissioner availing alternative remedy – Being unsuccessful approaching Court in PIL – Impermissible –A person cannot be permitted to avail two remedies simultaneously – Such conduct is abuse of process of Court. (Para 43)
(c) Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 – Section 53 – Term of Committee five years – State Government may appoint a committee – Otherwise old committee to function till permanent arrangement is made – Government not invoking section 53 – Respondent no. 4 constituting Committee – Challenge to constitution of Committee withdrawn on High Court directing parties to appear before Assistant Commissioner with liberty to raise all issues before him – Order passed in presence of appellant not objecting or impleading himself before Assistant Commissioner – Assistant Commissioner passing order and appeal thereagainst pending before Commissioner – Appellant taking the plea before Supreme Court for the first time – No interference needed. (Para 11, 45, 46)
(1959) Supp. 1 SCR 769; (2011) 6 SCC 529; (1989) Supp 1 SCC 504; (2002) 7 SCC 564; (1991) 4 SCC 54; (2005) 10 SCC 760; (2011) 6 SCC 529 – Referred
(d) PIL – Religious institutions – should not be entertained simply on the basis of affidavits of the parties. (Para 47)
(2003) 7 SCC 546 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant herein filed a Public Interest Litigation i.e. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 2321/2006 alleging misappropriation of property of Galta Peeth/Thikana (3rd respondent herein).
D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2004 was also filed by one Mahanth Ram Saran Das as a Public Interest Litigation, questioning whether Mahanth appointed vide order dated 09.06.1943 was to administer the properties during his life time or there was a right of succession.
D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 6607 of 2004 was filed by Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya challenging the notifications dated 17.09.2004 whereby Chapter 10 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was made applicable to the Trust.
Notification dated 18.09.2004 whereby a Committee under Section 53 of the Act was appointed in respect of the Trust was challenged in D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5650 of 2007 was filed by the Mandir Thikana Shri Galtaji.
A common order was passed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J. –
Leave granted.
2. The present Civil Appeals arise out of the common order dated 4th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The facts as culled out from the impugned order dated 4th May, 2010 are – The appellant herein filed a Public Interest Litigation i.e. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 2321/2006 alleging misappropriation of property of Galta Peeth/Thikana (3rd respondent herein); whether Mahanth appointed vide order dated 09.06.1943 was to administer the properties during his life time or there was a right of succession. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5111 of 2004 was also filed by one Mahanth Ram Saran Das as a Public Interest Litigation, whereas D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 6607 of 2004 was filed by Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya challenging the notifications dated 17.09.2004 whereby Chapter 10 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was made applicable to the Trust and notification dated 18.09.2004 whereby a Committee under Section 53 of the Act was appointed in respect of the Trust. D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 5650 of 2007 was filed by the Mandir Thikana Shri Galtaji. Though D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 6607 of 2004 and D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 5650 of 2007 were filed before the learned single Judge, as all the issues revolve around Galta Peeth and properties of Thikana Galta, the writ petitions before the learned single Judge were called and a common order was passed by the High Court.
3. For better appreciation of facts, the relief sought in D.B. (Civil) W.P. No. 2321 of 2006, which is a Public Interest Litigation, the order which is impugned in the Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 28021 of 2010 is extracted below:
(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Galta Peeth / Thikana, its temples and properties are public properties and not private or individual properties and it may be dealt with in the manner public properties are dealt with; and
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain respondent No. 4 Shri Avadhesh Kumar or any of the other legal representative of late Shri Ramodaracharya as well as respondent No. 5 Shri Raghavacharya in any manner using, managing or interfering in the temples and properties of the Galta Peeth/Thikana and its accompanying temples;
(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the State Government should be directed to take over control and management of the temples and properties of the Galta Peeth/Thikana and appoint a Board to manage the properties and temples of the Galta Peeth in line with the Vaishno Devi Shrine or Tirupati Balaji Temple or in any other manner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; and
(iv) by further appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature whereof, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the State Government to submit a list of the properties of the Galta Peeth to the Hon’ble Court as well as the list of properties which had been sold by the former Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya or his family members including Shri Avadhesh Kumar and others.
4. The High Court, after taking into consideration the material placed before it, disposed of all the four writ petitions by a common order.
5. The High Court has framed two issues in the Public Interest Litigation. It summarized the first issue as to whether the properties of Galta Peeth have to be treated as public properties or private properties and whether the Mahant has right to alienate them?
The second issue is whether there is any right of succession to the Galta Peeth and its properties as per order dated 09-06-1943 appointing Mahant; and whether the Mahant was to administer the properties during his life time?
6. The High Court considered the provisions of Section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also the objections
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
