Invoking extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction requires complete transparency and bona fides. Suppression of material knowledge or parallel litigation, coupled with the availability of a specific efficacious alternative statutory remedy, renders a petition non-maintainable and subject to summary dismissal.

Order :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality, propriety, and validity of the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, and the subsequent appellate order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Authority’) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE LIS AT HAND:

2. Before adverting to the rival submissions and entering upon the realm of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is considered apposite to delineate the factual background and the circumstances, in a nutshell, which have culminated in the present adjudication:

2.1 The genesis of the present dispute stems from the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1959’). A registered Trust Deed dated 15.12.2008 was executed in relation to respondent No.1-Shri Sheela Mata Temple Trust.

2.2 Following the execution of the said Trust Deed, Form 8 was submitted before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, seeking to record the changes pertaining to the trustees and the immovable properties of the Trust.

2.3 The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, accepted the said Form 8 and directed that the changes related to the trustees and immovable properties be given effect to by causing the entries to be amended in the register in accordance with Form 4 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1962’).

2.4 After a lapse of several years, the petitioner, claiming to be a shebait of the Jamwai Mata Temple, challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.04.2010 by preferring an appeal, bearing Appeal No. 13/2019, under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 before the Appellate Authority.

2.5 The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the subsequent impugned order dated 21.04.2022 on the ground of being filed beyond the prescribed limitation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the initial order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, as well as the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned orders are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and suffer from patent perversity, inasmuch as the mandatory statutory procedures were blatantly bypassed.

4. It was contended that the proceedings undertaken under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 are void ab initio. It was submitted that no notices came to be issued to the interested persons prior to amending the entries which constitutes non-compliance and gross violation of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1962, allowing the amendments to completely escape the scrutiny of the beneficiaries. Moreover, it was apprised that the Devasthan Department’s own circular dated 29.12.2017 makes it mandatory to publish the proposed inquiry under Section 23 in newspapers and the said circular has blatantly been ignored in the present case. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was placed on the r