JAYANTI LAL Vs. DEVASTHAN DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, Jayanti Lal and Hansmukh lal, have submitted this writ petition against the order dated 23. 5. 2001 (Annex. 6) passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur particularly questioning the interpretation put by the learned commissioner on the provisions of Sections 38 and 39 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts act, 1959 (`the Act' hereinafter ).

(2.) A brief reference to the background facts would suffice. According to the petitioners, there exists an ancient Teerth of Shri Andeshwar Parshvanath at Kushalgarh about 50 kilometers from Banswara. The idol dates back to 12th or 13th Century and the temple exists at the said place of almost a century. A Public Trust in the name of `shri Atishay Kshetra Shri Andeshwarji Bees Panthi Jain Mandir, Kushalgarh' was got registered under the provisions of the act on 20. 7. 1966; and at the time of registration, 11 Trustees were named as the initial Trustees with Shri Seth Nathmal as the working trustee. According to the petitioners, the mode of succession for the position of trustees was indicated as; `by Digambar Jain Panchan Bees Panthi, Kushalgarh'. The trustees were managing the temple and its properties under the supervision of Shri Digambar Jain Panchan Bees Panthi,kushalgarh which is the Supreme Body of the persons belonging to Bees Panthi Digambar Jain Samaj at Kushalgarh. Every year, on Kartik Sudi 13th, 14th and 15th, the members of Samaj assemble in a `mela', decisions are taken by the Samaj wherein the trustees of the Trust also participate. In the meeting dated 19. 1. 1994, a Committee of 31 members, including the respondent No. 3 Kantilal, was appointed by the Samaj for managing its affairs, chiefly of looking after the temple. The Committee was appointed for three years and as the working trustee Seth Nathmal was not physically fit, his son petitioner No. 1 Jayanti Lal was appointed as Chairman of the Samaj with petitioner No. 2 Hansmukh Lal as the Secretary. According to the petitioners, they ipso facto became respectively the working trustee and the Secretary of the Trust. The petitioners have also alleged that in the meeting dated 18. 12. 1996, the Samaj authorised Seth Nathmal to appoint trustees and consequently he appointed 21 trustees on 18. 6. 1977.

(3.) AFTER notice to the respondent No. 3 and 4 and after hearing the parties, the Commissioner, Devasthan Department has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 23. 5. 2001 (Annex. 6) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that under Section 39 of the Act, such a direction could be given to the applicants and it was not necessary that only the Assistant Commissioner should move the application in pursuance of the order passed under Section 39 of the Act.