MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.

This writ petition has been filed by Satya Narain Sharma questioning the validity of Section 3(viii) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, with prayer that the same be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the Notification dated 23.05.2007 (Annexure-10) whereby exemption has been granted to the respondent no. 5 from the applicability of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’), be quashed and set aside. Prayer has also been made for setting aside the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan, registering the respondent no. 5 as Public Trust.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 5 is a society registered under the Jaipur Societies Registration Act, 1943, on 19.02.1949 with registration no. 15 of 1948-49. The petitioner is a tenant of the shop of respondent no. 5 situated in Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur, since 1961. According to the petitioner, the property in question was originally owned by late Pandit Shri Ram Shanker S/o late Pandit Shri Sheodin Ji, R/o Chaukari Modi Khana, Jaipur. He created a Waqf of the said property by Waqf deed. The copy of the Hindi translation of the Wakf deed originally written in Urdu, has been placed on the record. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 had a limited right over the property in question. However, the Assistant Devsthan Commissioner, without making proper enquiry in terms of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act of 1959’) and without issuing proper public notice, registered the same as public trust vide order dated 11.09.2006. The font size of the script of the notice published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ was so small that it was not legible.

3. It is contended that the respondent no. 5 is earning profits by selling ayurvedic medicines in the open market. The entire control of the Society was earlier in the hands of late Shri Mohan Das Agarwal and after his death, it came in the hands of Ram Das Agarwal, who is an influential leader of Bhartiya Janta Party. The respondent no. 5, considering that the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner was located in Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur, wanted to get the same evicted, so that it could be let out to a person of his liking. The respondent no. 5, therefore, filed an application before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, for eviction but subsequently he filed an application before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur on 08.08.2008 for withdrawal of the application for eviction on the ground that it has got exemption from the Act of 2001. The copy of the notification granting exemption dated 23.05.2007 has been placed on the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very application for seeking exemption was moved before the concerned authority of the State after the eviction petition was filed against the petitioner. Since the respondent no. 6 was having influence in the Government being an active politician and his move was supported by Mr. Surendra Pareek, the then MLA and Mr. Girdhari Lal Bhargava, the then M.P. of B.J.P., he was granted benefit by colourable exercise of the power by the State. Learned counsel cited the note-sheet of the proceedings of the State (Annexure-9) to show that the Director, Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, objected to grant of exemption. The State Government without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, issued the exemption notification dated 23.05.2007.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 2001 confers unguided and unbridled power on the State Government for granting exemption and it suffers from vice of excessive delegation of power and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The State Government without any criteria and by adopting the method of pick and choose, grants exemption to