(1 of 3)

[CW-1602/2013]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1602/2013

1. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Kumbha Ram Rajpurohit, aged about 53

years, R/o Village-Toliyasar, Tehsil – Sri Dungargarh, District

Bikaner, Rajasthan.

2. Poosa Ram S/o Shri Lichi Ram Rajpurohit, aged about 42

years, R/o Village-Toliyasar, Tehsil – Sri Dungargarh, District

Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Shri Bheru Ji Mandir Village-Toliyasar, Tehsil – Sri Dungargarh,

District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Devasthan

Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government of

Rajasthan, Udaipur.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner

Division, Bikaner.

4. Shri Shanker Lal S/o Shri Khuma Ram Nai, R/o Village-

Toliyasar, Tehsil – Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. Shri Inder Chand S/o Shri Tola Ram Nai, Village-Toliyasar,

Tehsil – Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

6. Shri Toliyasar Bheru Ji Mandir Trust, Village-Toliyasar, Tehsil –

Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. D.K. Joshi

Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari

Mr. G.R. Goyal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

16/05/2022

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 21.11.2012 (Annex. 14) passed by the Commissioner

(2 of 3)

[CW-1602/2013]

Devasthan Department, Udaipur in appeal No. 28/2012 (Kanhaiya

Lal & Ors. Vs. Shankar Lal & Ors.).

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order

dated 21.11.2012 (Annex.14) passed by the Commissioner

Devasthan Department on the face of it is erroneous, arbitrary

and illegal and prays that the same may be quashed and set

aside.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents have

raised a preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability

of the writ petition. In view of the Section 22 of the Public Trust

Act, 1959, whereby the remedy of filing a civil suit is provided

against the order passed by the Commissioner Devasthan

Department in appeal under Section 20 of the Public Trust Act,

1959. To buttress the contention, learned counsel for the

respondents relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench dated

25.04.2017 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.

41/2001 (Amit Puri and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and

Ors.).

Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to

rebut the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents on

the ground of maintainability of the writ petition.

In view of the submissions made above, this Court is of the

view that the writ petition against the order dated 21.11.2012

passed by Commissioner Department of Devasthan, Udaipur in

Appeal No. 28/2012 is not maintainable and the petitioners may

prefer a civil suit for assailing the validity of the appellate order.

The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed on the ground of

availability of alternate remedy, with a liberty to the petitioners to

(3 of 3)

[CW-1602/2013]

approach the civil court by way of filing a civil suit against the

order dated 21.11.2012, if, so felt advised.

In case the petitioners approach the civil court by way of

filing a civil suit within a period of six weeks from today, then the

interim order dated 27.02.2013 passed by this Court shall remain

in currency till the application preferred by the petitioner under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is heard and decided.

It is made clear that the learned trial court while considering

the delay caused in the matter for filing the suit, shall take into

consideration the time period spent by the petitioners in

prosecuting their remedy by way of filing a writ petition before this

Court.

Needless to say that learned trial court will not be influenced

by the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by thi