Dismissed

Vidhyasagar Acharya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2019CW/13324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking transfer of an application under Section 41 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 from Jodhpur to Bikaner, holding no statutory provision exists for such transfer and facts do not warrant inherent powers exercise.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and stay application dismissed. Transfer of the Section 41 application prayed for was not ordered.

Vidhyasagar Acharya Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13324/2018

¶4

Vidhyasagar Acharya, Aged About 81 Years, S/o Late Shri Ramkrishan Acharya @ Kalkatti, R/o Surano Ki Guar, Acharyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.

¶5

Anand Kumar Acharya S/o Shri Vidhyasagar Acharya,, Aged About 60 Years, (Maternal Grandson Of Shri Kishan Lal Vyas- Vyavsthapak), R/o Chhabili Ghati, Bikaner.

¶6

Madhukar Acharya S/o Shri Vidhyasagar Acharya,, Aged About 55 Years, Maternal Grandson Of Kishanlal Vyas, R/o Surano Ki Guar, Acharyo Ka Chowk, Bikaner.

¶7

Vijaylakshmi Acharya, Aged About 50 Years, Chhabili Gati, Bikaner.

¶8

Abhishek Acharya S/o Anand Kumar Acharya,, Aged About 32 Years, Maternal Grandson Late Shri Kishanlal Vyas, R/o Chhabili Ghati, Bikaner.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Governmentof Rajasthan, Devasthan Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur.

¶13

Khushalchand S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Das,, By Caste Vyas, Chhabili Ghati, Bikaner.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana Mr. D.K. Joshi

¶16

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶17

Order

¶18

05/07/2019

¶19

By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CW-13324/2018]

¶22

that Application No.5/2017/Jaisalmer, pending before the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jodhpur - respondent No.2, be transferred to Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Bikaner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.1 is a senior citizen residing in Bikaner and most of the parties and properties of the Trust are situated in District Bikaner, within the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Bikaner. As such, respondent No.3 ought to have filed the application before the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Bikaner.

¶24

Mr. Gharsana, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, submitted that the facts asserted by the petitioners are not completely correct, inasmuch as some of the properties are situated in Ramdeora, which falls within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2, hence the respondent No.3 has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. Apart from the above, he contended that the case in question is simply an application under Section 41 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act of 1959’), for which the petitioners’ appearance in person is not at all required.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any substance in the present writ petition, firstly because there is no provision contemplating transfer of a case from one Assistant Commissioner to another Assistant Commissioner under the Act of 1959 and no case can be transferred from one Assistant Commissioner to another. Hence, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot transfer the case, as prayed by the petitioners.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-13324/2018]

¶28

That apart, the case pending before the respondent No.2, is only an application under Section 41 of the Act of 1959, seeking permission to become Managing Trustee of the Trust, for which petitioners’ personal presence is hardly required; they can well contest the case through counsel etc. at Jodhpur.

¶29

As such, even if is presumed that in an appropriate case, this Court can, in exercise of its inherent powers, transfer a case pending before one Assistant Commissioner to another Assistant Commissioner, the facts of the case do not warrant exercise of such inherent power.

¶30

This being the position, the writ petition is dismissed. The Stay Application No.13339/2018 also stands

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

188-skm/-

Vidhyasagar Acharya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhyasagar Acharya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Kumari Gadri Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Lal Vs State and Anr.

Lrs of Ramesh Chand Vs Kulwant Kaur

Yogendra Singh Vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Associated Soapstone Dis. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs State and Ors.

Navlakhi Devi Rathi Vs Divisional Commissioner,Bikaner and Ors.