Disposed

Balraj Munoth Son of Shri Manakraj Munoth v. Commissioner

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2023CW/667/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Devasthan Department to expeditiously dispose of a pending appeal filed by writ petitioners under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, ruling that delay in disposal would defeat justice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner, Devasthan Department to dispose of Appeal No.34/2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.

Balraj Munoth Son of Shri Manakraj Munoth… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:27429]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 667/2021

¶4

Balraj Munoth Son Of Shri Manakraj Munoth, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Rajvihar, Mile 6/4, Tonk Road, Airport Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶5

Smt. Manju Surana Daughter Of Late Shri Manakraj Munor, Resident Of Rajvihar, Mile 6/4, Tonk Road, Airport Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur.

¶9

Assistant Commissioner (First), Devasthan Department, Jaipur.

¶10

Smt. Manju Kothari Wife Of Shri Shivprakash Kothari, Resident Of 146, Ramnagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.

¶11

Raj Welfare Trust, Rajvihar Mile, 6/4, Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶12

Sunil Heeralal Dhadda Son Of Shri Heeralal Dhadda, Resident Of 730, Dhadda Bhawan, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

¶13

Sudhir Heeralal Dhadda Son Of Shri Heeralal Dhadda, Resident Of 730, Dhadda Bhawan, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ugra Sen Yadav

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶17

Order

¶18

03/10/2023

¶19

At the very outset of the arguments, the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has confined his prayer to the extent that the

[2023:RJ-JP:27429]

[CW-667/2021]

(2 of 5)

respondent No.1- Commissioner, Devsthan Department, may be directed to expeditiously decide the Appeal No.34/2019, titled as Balraj Munoth & Anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Anr. filed under Section 20 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’) with a challenge to the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector(I), Devesthan Department, in Case No.4/2018 in regard to Form No.8 dated 01.02.2013 submitted in the year 2018.

¶24

Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶25

petitioners submits that a public trust was created in the name of Rajasthan Welfare Trust in the year 1973 and time to time Forms No.8 were submitted to the competent authority in regard to the changes occurred in the trust i.e. either in the trust deed or in the members of the trust. Counsel further submits that Form No.8 dated 01.02.2013 was submitted in the year 2018 which was registered as a case No.4/2018. After making an inquiry under section 23 of the Act of 1959 the Assistant Commissioner (I), Devsthan Department vide its order dated 12.09.2019 recorded its findings and accepted the Form No.8 and ordered to record the entries in the register in accordance with the findings that the name of Manju Kothari be recorded as a member of the trust in Form No.8. Counsel submits that the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order dated

[2023:RJ-JP:27429]

[CW-667/2021]

(3 of 5)

12.09.2019 without taking into consideration the complete facts in regard to the changes occurred in the trust in a chronological manner and the said order is illegal and perverse. Counsel further submits that the petitioners herein have preferred an appeal under section 20 of the Act of 1959 assailing the order dated 12.09.2019 on various cogent grounds and the said appeal was registered at No.34/2019 on 10.10.2019. Counsel further submits that the appeal which was registered on 10.10.2019 has not been decided so far by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department and the hearing of the appeal is being adjourned on each and every date for one or the other reasons. Counsel further submits that non disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioners for a long time has created many complications and its further pendency will further give rise to other complications. Counsel further submits that as the petitioners have full hope and in case the order which is under challenge is set aside then many other acts being done on the basis of the said order, will be of no consequence but that will create certain complications which may lead to further litigations. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice that the appeal filed by the petitioners may be ordered to be disposed of at the earliest.

[2023:RJ-JP:27429]

[CW-667/2021]

(4 of 5)

Counsel appearing for the respondents does not oppose the limited prayer made from the petitioners side for expeditious disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioners.

¶34

Having considered the submissions made by Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and consent given by the counsel for the State as well as other private respondents and after going through the record enclosed with the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners since long is further going to create complications which may lead to further litigations. It is a settled proposition of law that the justice delayed is justice denied. Hence, this Court without making any comments on the merits of the case, deems just and proper to direct the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, to finally dispose of the appeal No.34/2019 titled as Balraj Munoth & Anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Anr., as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶35

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

(5 of 5) [CW-667/2021]

¶37

[2023:RJ-JP:27429]

¶38

In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶40

Sharma NK-Dy. Registrar

Balraj Munoth Son of Shri Manakraj Munoth v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balraj Munoth Son of Shri Manakraj Munoth v. Commissioner

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

Raghunath Prasad S/O Shri Baluram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nitesh Mittal Son of Late Shri Ramesh Chand Mittal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanti Wife of Late Shri Gaindilal Vs Rampal Raigar Son of Shri Deeparam Raigar

Bhajan Lal S/O Sh. Nathi Lal Vs Jvvnl

Gordhan S/O Gopal Lal Vs Nagar Parishad

Mvl. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan