Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Shailesh D. Vardhan S/o Devi Chand Vardhan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2429, 4041 of 2023
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B (4) - Rajasthan Public Trust Rules 1962 - Rules 21 and 22 - Trust - Application - Election - Petitioners filed an application before Assistant Commissioner, stating therein Proforma No. 8 submitted by petitioners was not published in daily newspapers and objections were not invited according to provisions contained in Chapter IV of Rajasthan Public Trust Rules, 1962 - Respondents filed reply to said application, stating therein that Proforma No. 8 so was already duly published, and there was no requirement to publish Proforma No. 8 submitted by petitioners - Whether any change has occurred in any of particulars recorded in register, Assistant Commissioner may hold an inquiry - Whether to publish Proforma No. 8, or not - Court further observes that mandate in regard to publication in question is to apply, only when a new trust has been formed under Sections 17 and 18 of Act of 1959, and in that eventuality, procedure as laid down in Rules 20 and 21 of Rules 1962 is to be followed; such a situation is not prevailing in present case. Para 13
Finding of Court :
Court also observes that petitioners have filed, in total 5 applications: (1) Summoning of witnesses under Section 67(b) of Act of 1959; (2) Application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (3) Application under Section 65-B (4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (4) Application for exhibiting the documents and (5) Application for summoning 6 witnesses in support of defence - Out of these 5 applications, learned authority below has allowed 3 application (Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4), while remaining two applications were rejected vide impugned orders - Court further observes that the petitioners did not assign in their application any cogent reason for summoning Inspector and Station House Officer (SHO), as witnesses; Station House Officer was assigned the duty for maintaining law and order during election, and report of Inspector regarding the proceeding dated is already taken on record - Their statements and evidence were not at all required for adjudication by learned authority below in pending proceedings in question.
Result : Present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:
(a) By an appropriate writ order or direction, order may kindly issued and the order dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure-42) passed by Assistant Commissioner (First), Jaipur in proceeding No. 134/2022 (titled as Achal Gachh Shweatamber Trust Bhinmal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others), may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and order dated 15.02.2000 (Annexure-32) may kindly be declared arbitrary, illegal and bad in law and the Respondent-Authority may kindly be directed to proceed in the matter according to the provisions of Rules 21 and 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Rules 1962.
(c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly issued and the respondent Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur may kindly be directed to conduct the inquiry into the matter with fair and impartial manner and pass the order accordance with law.
(d) That the any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, by which the Petitioners may get full justice may also be allowed.
(e) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favor of the Petitioners.”
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4041/2023:
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:
(a) By an appropriate writ order or direction, order may kindly issued and the order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure-49) passed by Assistant Commissioner (First), Jaipur in proceeding No. 134/2022 (titled as Sri Achal Gachh Shweatamber Trust Bhinmal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others), may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and an application (Annex-46) under section 67 B of the Public Trust Act and application dated 20.03.2023 (Annex-48) may kindly be allowed.
(c) That the any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, by which the Petitioners may get full justice may also be allowed.
(d) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favor of the Petitioners.”
2. In sum and substance, the factual matrix is common in both the instant petitions, which reveals that the Trust was registered under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1959’) in the year 1987 and since then, many of its Trustees have either expired or left the Trust.
2.1 On 15.11.2021, the petitioners submitted an application before the Assistant Devasthan Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur for initiating the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 alongwith Proforma No. 8 for necessary changes in the register of the Trust. The respondent-Mohanlal Seth also submitted proforma No. 8, before the same authority; the said proforma, as per the petitioners, was prepared on the basis of a fake and false so called election which was never conducted by the Members of the General Body of the Trust.
2.2. In the meantime, the Devasthan Department, Jaipur vide order dated 12.11.2021 (Dispatched on 23.11.2021) transferred the entire proceedings from Assistant Commissioner, Jodhpur to Assistant Commissioner (Headquarter) Devasthan, Udaipur.
2.3. The petitioners against the said transfer order dated 12.11.2021 submitted a letter on 01.12.2021 before the Commissioner Devasthan, Udaipur; whereupon, when the grievance of the petitioners was not redressed, they have preferred a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16991/2021 before this Hon’ble Court assailing the aforementioned order dated 12.11.2021.
2.4. Thereafter, on 14.12.2021, the petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur, stating therein the Proforma No. 8 submitted by the petitioners was not published in daily newspapers and the objections were not invited acc
Point of Law : If an appeal has been filed therefrom, in accordance with decision of Commissioner on such appeal and provisions of section 21 and 22 shall apply to such amended entries as they apply ....
The inquiry held by Deputy or Charity Commissioner under Section 19 is by no means an administrative or an executive inquiry The rules framed under the Act called the Bombay Public Trusts Rules 1951 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of appeals under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and the validity of the findings of the Appellate Authority. The judgmen....
The court clarified the authority of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 and interpreted the eligibility criteria for trusteeship as per the amended constitution of the Tru....
The court upheld the trial court's order allowing document production relevant to the allegations in a public trust administration case, emphasizing the necessity of transparency and accountability.
The Public Trust must be impleaded in appeals concerning its registration to ensure proper adjudication of disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a person interested in a Public Trust to challenge the finding of the Registrar and the necessity of a notice under Section 80 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the authority to provisionally accept the change report and decide the inquiry within a stipulated period, as per the provisions ....
The court affirmed that interested persons in public trust matters have the right to join proceedings, and the concept of abatement does not apply, ensuring that inquiries can continue effectively.
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
