The Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act of 1959 is limited to cases where certain contingencies, as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 38, are satisfied.

1. - Petitioners, the alleged trustees of respondent No.4 Public Trust, registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short, 'Act of 1959), have laid this writ petition craving therein undermentioned reliefs:

(a) To direct the respondent No.3 herein to decide the application preferred by the petitioners under the provisions of section 38 as expeditiously as possible more particularly within a period of four weeks from the date of direction issued by this Hon'ble Court;

(b) To declare that in the light of the consent decree dated 3-8-2014 Annex.No.3 passed by the Civil Court at Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.316 of 2012 and resolution passed by the respondent no.2 Trust being Resolution Nos.1 and 2 of 2014, the observations and adjudication recorded by the Civil Court while passing the consent decree dated 3-8-2014 would contemplate an inquiry within the meaning of section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 and may further be pleased to direct the Assistant Commissioner to incorporate the names of newly appointed trustees in the trust register as expeditiously as possible;

(c) Pending The Hearing and final disposal of This Petition may be pleased to restrain the Board of Trustees of the respondent no.4 trust herein from taking any policy decision and/or any other action till the application seeking restraining orders/directions under the provisions of section 40 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 is decided by the competent civil court;

(d) To grant any other appropriate and just relief.

2. In the writ petition, it is inter-alia averred that the affairs of the Trust are managed by family and decedents of original religious head Shri Vallabhacharyaji. It is further averred that presently the trust is headed by its President Mr. Brijesh Kumar alias Vrajesh Kumar and some of the petitioners are his siblings and some family members. It is also submitted in the writ petition that a dispute cropped up between Mr. Brijesh Kumar alias Vrajesh Kumar and petitioners No.1 & 2 vis-a-vis management and administration of various other temples owned by the family and for which a civil suit was laid at Vadodara in the State of Gujarat which was finally decided.

3. The suit was decided in terms of compromise arrived at between the rival parties to settle the dispute perpetually, however, it appears that despite settlement of dispute by way of compromise the sense of discord and acrimony between Mr. Brijesh Kumar alias Vrajesh Kumar and the petitioners is subsisting and that has prompted the petitioners to lay an application under Section 38 of the Act of 1959 before the second respondent Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur. In the writ petition, it was inter-alia pleaded that despite laying petition under Section 38 of the Act of 1959 no effective proceedings are undertaken by the Commissioner Devasthan, therefore, requisite directions be issued in this behalf.

4. After issuance of notice by this Court, the second respondent Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur transferred the petition to Assistant Commissioner, i.e. third respondent, for deciding it in accordance with law. The said order was made by second respondent Commissioner in adherence of the provisions under Section 38 of the Act of 1959.

5. It appears that now Assistant Commissioner has taken up the matter and has issued the process. It is also apprised by Mr. Tribuvan Gupta, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, that notices have been issued to Mr. Brijesh Kumar alias Vrajesh Kumar by the Assistant Commissioner indicating date of hearing as 3rd of December 2015, on which date he is required to submit his reply/explanation.

6. Mr. Anand Purohit, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the matter is pending since August 2015 and till date no effective proceedings have been undertaken by the respondent Assistant Commissioner, therefore, requisite directions be issued for deciding the application of the petitioners expeditiousl