PRATHAM PEETHASTH GOSWAMI BITTALNATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.1990 (Anx.3) whereby the Administrator was appointed and the order dated 28.2.1998 (Anx.2) whereby the property of the Trust Shri Vitthal Nath Acharya Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, has been transferred to the State Government and further, merged in the Government Pathak Sadashiv Shastri Mahavidyalaya, Kota.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Member and President of Shvi Vitthal Nath Pathshala Trust, which is an institution registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act w.e.f. 26.3.1965. But the said fact has been made clear in rejoinder while filing reply to the preliminary objections, stated by the petitioner that the deed of Vitthal Nath Pathshala Trust was executed on 27.12.1945 and the same was registered on 14.1.1946 (vide Annexure-5) and further, Vitthal Nath Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 15.11.1956 and earlier to it, its bye laws were framed on 13.8.1956 (vide Annexure-6). It is further stated in the rejoinder that by typing mistake, in first sentence of para 2 of the writ petition, Shvi Vitthal Nath Pathshala Trust has been typed instead of Shri Vitthal Nath Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and further, Shri Vitthal Nath Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Shri Vitthal Nath Acharya Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya are one and the same. It is then stated in the writ petition that the respondents were having no authority of law to take over the properties which belonged to the Trust and that too, without any compensation, in the garb of taking over the management or appointing the Administrator. It is also stated in the writ petition that there is no authority of law to take over the management or to appoint Administrator and to continue it for an indefinite period besides the action has been taken without any notice of hearing. All the aforesaid actions of the respondents are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondents have filed reply and taken the objection of not filing the power of attorney by the petitioner with the further objection that the writ petition has been filed on behalf of some other institution and that the disputed questions of fact are involved in the writ petition. It is further stated in the reply that challenge to the order dated 15.12.1990 is belated and there is no challenge to the order issued by the State Government to the Principal for execution of the gift deed which was executed on 16.7.1998.