1984 Supreme(Raj) 113

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.S.SIDHU
NARAIN LAL - Appellant
Versus
PRABANDHKARINI COMMITTEE - Respondent
Civil Misc Appeals 55 Of 1980
Decided On : 05/15/1984

The District Court, while exercising its limited jurisdiction under S. 40 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, cannot sit in judgment over the validity of the order made by the Assistant Commissioner under S. 38 of the Act.

Headnote:

PUBLIC TRUST - Permission granted by Assistant Commissioner under S. 38 of Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 - Validity - District Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate - Scope of enquiry under S. 40 of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

Narain Lal, a votary of the Swetamber sect of Jains, made an application under S. 38 of the Rajasthan Public-Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Assistant Commissioner appointed under the Act, for permission to make an application before the District Court seeking certain directions from the said Court against the Prabandhkarini Committee Digamber Jain Atishya Kstratia (hereinafter called the Digamber Samiti), which is in charge of the management and administration of the well known Jain temple, known as the temple of Mahavirji, situate in the town of Mahavirji alias Chandangaon Naurangabad in the district of Sawai Madhopur, and also against the President and Secretary of the Digamber Samiti in respect of the administration of the affairs of the said temple. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application. The Digamber Samiti challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner by way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on January 8, 1971. The special appeal filed by the Digamber Samiti from the order of dismissal of its writ petition was itself dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on May 10, 1972. In pursuance of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which was affirmed by the High Court as aforementioned, Narain Lal filed an application under S. 40 of the Act, in the District Court Bharatpur, against the Digamber Samiti and its President and Secretary, for their removal from the management of the public trust consisting of the temple of Mahavirji and for appointment of a new management committee from among the votaries of Swetamber sect. The Swetamber sect of the Jains formed a society, known as Shri Jain Swetamber (Moorti Poojak) Mahavirji Tirath Raksha Samiti Jaipur (hereinafter called the Swetamber Samiti), to protect the interests of the votaries of Swetamber sect in the management and administration of the affairs of the temple of Mahavirji aforementioned. Taking into consideration the fact that Narain Lal, being a mortal, may not survive to see his application through, the Swetamber Samiti applied on its own and obtained an order, dated July 23, 1974, from the Assistant Commissioner under S. 38 of the Act enabling it to file an application before the District Court under S. 40 of the Act, similar to the application filed by Narain Lal against the Digamber Samiti and its President and Secretary for their removal from the management of the temple of Mahavirji and for the appointment of a new committee consisting of Swetamber Jains or of the Jain community as a whole to administer the affairs of the temple. By his order, dated October 23, 1979, the learned District Judge held that since the parties to the two applications were common and the issues arising in both were directly and substantially the same, the two applications should be consolidated for the purposes of enquiry and disposal under S. 40 of the Act. Thus, the two applications (No. 35 of 1979 and No. 36 of 1979) filed respectively by the Swetamber Samiti and Narain Lal, were consolidated. As many as twenty issues were stated by the district judge for determination of the controversy raised before him. He started recording evidence on those issues. While evidence was still being recorded, the Court felt that the two applications could be disposed of on the basis of a few issues which were treated as preliminary issues. Issues 14 (a) and 19 in the application of the Swetamber Samiti which are relevant for our present purpose read as under:- 14 (a) Whether in these proceedings, this Court has jurisdiction to see the validity or otherwise of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, to the petitioner under S. 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. 19. Whether the petition is beyond the scope of S. 38 and S. 40 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and is not maintainable. By his order, dated, February 8, 1980, the learned district Judge decided these two issues against the applicants. His findings on these issues are to the effect that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner enabling the applicants to file their respective applications under S. 40 of the Act are invalid and that for this reason and also because the relief prayed in application No. 35 of 1979 is beyond the scope of section 40, the said application is not maintainable. Though the order, dated, February 8, 1980, passed by the district Judge does not expressly say so, it follows as a matter of necessary implication and consequence of the said order that both the applications which had been consolidated and which were being heard together were dismissed by the learned district Judge. Aggrieved by such dismissal Narain Lal and the Swetamber Samiti filed separate appeals before this Court.

Finding of the Court:

The District Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan to the petitioners under, S. 38 of the Act. The said permission is final and conclusive. In any case, the District Court is exercising a very limited jurisdiction under S. 40 and it cannot in the exercise of such limited jurisdiction sit in judgment over the validity of the order made by another authority under the Act. The District Court must hold such enquiry into the case as it deems necessary, or cause such enquiry to be made and thereafter pass such orders as it may consider appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case. If it finds that the reliefs prayed are beyond the scope of its own powers under the Act to grant, it may dismiss the applications before it, but it cannot dismiss these applications merely on the ground that the sanction behind them under S. 38 is not valid or that the relief prayed for therein is beyond the scope of clauses (a) to (f) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 40 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to see the validity or otherwise of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, to the petitioner under S. 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. 2. Whether the petition is beyond the scope of S. 38 and S. 40 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and is not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction conferred on the District Court under S. 40 of the Act is of a very limited nature, and while seized of the enquiry into a case pending before it on an application filed under section 38 or section 39, the District Court must constantly bear in mind the inherent limitations of its jurisdiction under section 40, and curb for the time being its usual habit and tendency to act as a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction empowered to entertain and try all suits of a civil nature. 2. While exercising its limited jurisdiction under section 40, the District Court cannot sit in judgment as to whether by issuing a direction to a particular person, like the appellants in the instant case, to file an application before the District Court, for direction in respect of the management and administration of a particular public trust, the Assistant Commissioner had committed an error of jurisdiction or not. 3. One tribunal of limited jurisdiction, like the District Court under S. 40 of the Act, cannot be allowed to adjudge the validity or otherwise of the decision of another tribunal like the Assistant Commissioner. 4. All that the District Court may concern itself in that behalf is with the existence or otherwise of the order of the Assistant Commissioner and not with its legal validity or otherwise. 5. Once the District Court is satisfied that the Assistant Commissioner has issued a direction under section 38 of the Act requiring a particular person to apply to the District Court for directions regarding the administration of a particular public trust, the District Court gets the jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry into the application in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Final Decision: Appeals allowed. The impugned judgment and decree or order, whatever it is, are set aside. Both the cases are remanded to the District Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur for further proceedings according to law in the light of the judgment of this Court announced herein. The parties are directed through their counsel to enter appearance before the District Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur on May 29, 1984 and obtain orders from him in respect of further proceedings of enquiry to be held by him. The costs in these appeals will be costs in the cause and will abide the decision of the District Judge.