NIRBHAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, 66 in number, are tenants in the shops belonging to the third respondent Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Saheb, Hanumangarh Town and Junction by way of joint application seeks leave to special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7-10-1996 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4522/1993 Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Saheb, Hanumangarh Town and Junction v. State. The applicants have also filed a joint writ petition seeking direction to quash notification of the State Government dated 15/09/1998 and 3/06/1999 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of S. 2 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950") issued in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7-10-1996. The effect of the notification is that third respondent has been exempted from the application of the provisions of the Act of 1950.

(2.) We have heard Shri D. S. Sishodia, Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal at length. Before averting to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, we consider it necessary to give a prelude to the controversy involved. The third respondent Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Saheb, Hanumangarh Town and Junction (hereinafter referred to as the trust") is a registered body. It claims to be an education and charitable trust. According to the trust, its entire income is utilised for the purpose of running of its educational institutions. It is running a Guru Harikishan Public School upto 8th standard with English medium and also provides free facilities of boarding and lodging to the passengers. Its only source of income is rent from the shops. About 100 shops were constructed 40 years ago and rented out on a meagre rent. The trust approached to the State for granting exemption to them under the Act of 1950. Section 2(3) of the Act, reads as follows :- (3)The State Government if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest may, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any premises owned by any educational, religious or charitable institution the whole of the income derived from which is utilised for the purpose of that institution. In identical matter, the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 55/1981 after threadbare discussion of the controversy directed the State to issue notification under sub-section (3) of S. 2 of the Act of 1950 giving exemption to the trust from the application of the Act of 1950, by judgment dated 29-8-1991. The learned Single Judge following the judgment in said case allowed the writ petition in the same terms. The effect of the writ is that State was required to issue a notification under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950 exempting the third respondent Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Saheb, Hanumangarh Town and Junction from the application of the Act of 1950. The State preferred a Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7-10-1996 being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 140/1998 (Defect) State of Rajasthan and others v. Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Saheb, Hanumangarh Town and Junction. Along with this special appeal, an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in filing the special appeal was also filed. The said application was rejected by the order of the Division Bench dated 4-5-1999. The State preferred a S.L.P. before the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench but it was rejected by the order of the Apex Court dated 1-11-1999. After rejection of the S.L.P., the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7-10-1996 became final. Thus, State in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7-10-1996 issued impugned notification under S. 2(3) of the Act of 1950 giving exemption to the third respondent Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Saheb, Hanumangarh Town and Junction from the provisions of application of the Act of 1950.

(3.) The application for leave to special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7-10-1996 deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that after dismissal of the special appeal filed by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge, though on the ground of delay and not merit, a second special appeal is not maintainable. In any case it cannot be maintained at the instance of third party. It is true that the order rejecting the special appeal on the ground of delay or rejection of S.L.P. are not order of affirmation or a binding precedent of the Division Bench or Supreme Court, but it is final and effective as between the parties and binding precedent as a judgment of the Single Judge. Similarly, the writ petition also deserves to be rejected for the reason that as the impugned notification has been issued in compliance of the judicial order which has attained finality.