Honble ARORA, J. – The petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the validity of Secs. 38 & 39 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. He has, also, challenged the order dated 9.4.1985 (Annexure 2) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, gave-up the challenge to Secs. 38 & 39 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act at this stage and restricted his challenged on various grounds but it is not necessary to consider and decide the other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition as well as during the course of arguments as the matter can be disposed of on a single point, i.e. that the order has been passed witholut giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3). The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur Division, Udaipur, while passing the order Annexure 2 dated 9.4.85 did not give any notice to the petitioner. The issuance of the notice was dispensed with on the request of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3.

(4). Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act provides that ``if the Assistant Commissioner on the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document