The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Assistant Commissioner regarding Trust elections and functioning. The court held that since the issue required inquiry and the order was pending, no interim relief was appropriate.
The writ petition was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 7)
[2023/RJJD/018123]
[CW-1278/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1278/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madan Lal Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 29/05/2023
Pronounced on 02/06 / 2023
(2 of 7)
[2023/RJJD/018123]
[CW-1278/2023]
“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and following relief may be granted in favor of the petitioners.
A. The impugned order dt. 22.09.2022 (Ann.10) passed by learned Assistant Commissioner Devsthan Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. That the elections of the trust are become due and the statutory term of the present President, Vice President and Secretary is over and therefore, elections for new executive may be held and observer be send by the Devsthan Dept. in order to hold free and fair elections. C. That till the elections are made the ad-hoc committee may be allowed to work.
Any other relief with the Court deem fit may kindly be ordered.”
2.1. Due to change in the executive, the President of the Trust submitted Prapatra- 8 in the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur, and that, a notice inviting objections was also published in the newspaper. The petitioner filed a detailed objection regarding the illegal and irregular elections pertaining to the management of the Trust. The petitioner sent a letter dated 30.06.2022 to the President of the Trust regarding the irregularity in the working of the Trust and submitted an agenda for the Trust as well as made a request for calling of the General Meeting, in that regard.
[2023/RJJD/018123]
[CW-1278/2023]
(3 of 7)
2.2. The Secretary of the Trust published a notice dated 28.07.2022, notifying to the members that due to Chaturmas and Paryusan Festival, the AGM/EGM (Annual General Meeting) will be held on 19.09.2022 and 20.09.2022 at Shantibhawan Dewli Pabuji.
2.3. The petitioners again sent a notice dated 03.09.2022 through their Advocate, against non-consideration of the agenda published on 28.07.2022; the General Assembly meeting was held on 19.09.2022, wherein 33 members were present in the beginning of the meeting; an objection was raised by the members that 26 members proposed the agenda vide letter dated 30.06.2022 to add certain points in the agenda, which were the demands supported by the Trust Deed.
2.4. Three members of the previous Trust Board submitted their resignation, which was accepted by the President, and while the previous Trust Board was struck down, it was resolved that since holding of elections of new Trust Board will take time, therefore, till such time, an ad hoc committee was formed to continue the work of the Trust. The petitioners thereupon, filed an application before the respondents for rejection of the Prapatra- 8 because the Trust Board was dissolved.
2.5. The President of the Trust also submitted an application before the respondents, wherein it was stated that Prapatra- 8 was submitted and objections were already invited, and therefore, the other proposals, were liable to be struck down, and also prayed for continuance of the work of the trust. Thereafter, the
[2023/RJJD/018123]
[CW-1278/2023]
(4 of 7)
respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur vide the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 observed that there is no provision in the Constitution of Trust to dissolve the Trust in Annual General Meeting, and proposal for vote of noconfidence motion was not in the agenda of the meeting held on 19.09.2022, and therefore, the final orders will be passed, after appreciation of the evidence and examination of all the parties concerned.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Board of the Trust lost its majority and lost the confidence; the former Board had no power to be exercised on behalf of the Trust, but since the same was done, therefore, such action is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned order that no-confidence motion was not in agenda, clearly runs contrary to the record of the case, and thus, the same is not justified in law, more particularly, when the executive of the Trust had committed grave financial irregularities in discharge of its functions for the Trust in question.
3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have also filed an objection against the Prapatra- 8, and thus, the
[2023/RJJD/018123]
[CW-1278/2023]
(5 of 7)
proceedings conducted thereafter under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 are clearly violative of the provisions of law.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the total 21 members of the Trust in question have participated in the meeting and proposal has been made to constitute a Trust Committee zonewise within six months, and also one Naresh Kumar Punamiya was appointed as election officer. It was also submitted that the agenda of the Annual General Meeting of the Trust was decided to be prepared by the Executive Committee only; therefore, the other members have no right to prepare the agenda of the General Meeting.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that in the Annual General Meeting, no-confidence motion was passed against the newly elected Body, which was against the Constitution of the Trust; in the Annual General Meeting discussion can be made only upon the agenda prepared by the Working Committee. It was also submitted that the averment made by the petitioners regarding certain resignations being submitted before the respondent no.3, is also incorrect and false.
[2023/RJJD/018123]
[CW-1278/2023]
(6 of 7)
4.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the matter regarding Prapatra- 8 was pending, but meanwhile, both parties the have presented new facts, which have arisen in the meeting dated 19.09.2022, and thus, the matter can be finally decided only after due appreciation of evidence and examination of all the parties concerned, as observed in the impugned order.
6.1. Thereafter, the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur vide the impugned order 22.09.2022, the allowed the new elected body of the Trust in question to continue with the functioning of the Trust, till final decision of the case.
[2023/RJJD/018123]
[CW-1278/2023]
(7 of 7)
7.1. This Court further observes that in the impugned order, it
was clearly observed that the said new facts regarding the dissolution of the Trust and no-confidence motion in question were not mentioned in agenda of the meeting dated 19.09.2022, and thus, it was necessary to finally decide the matter after due appreciation of the evidence, as well as examination and cross examination of the parties concerned. This Court also observes that the matter is still pending before the respondent and thus, on that count also, the relief as claimed by the petitioners herein cannot be granted by this Court.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this court can grant relief to the petitioners given that the matter is still pending before the respondent Assistant Commissioner.
Whether the impugned order restricting the agenda and deciding the matter after enrollment of evidence is correct.
Whether the impugned order passed under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is maintainable in these facts.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayanti Lal
Anraj
Kushal Raj
The Commissioner, Devsthan Vibhag, Rajasthan
The Assistant Commissioner, Dev Sthan Vibhag, Jodhpur
Sohan Raj
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
