KELA DEVI TRUST Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by petitioner-Trust assailing order Ann.2 dt.1st July, 1993 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Kota while exercising power Under Section 33(4) of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 directing the petitioner to get their accounts of three financial years audited by special auditor and so also pay Rs. 15,000/- for each financial year to the auditor.

(2.) It appears that since audit for sometime was not carried out in terms of order Ann.2 dt.1st July, 1993, penalty of Rs. 100/- was also inflicted upon them and being aggrieved with the order Ann.2, petitioner preferred appeal before Commissioner, Devasthan that too was dismissed on the premise that there is no provision under the Act and at the same time observed that the order passed by the authority was under the directions of the State Government and the same cannot be reviewed/reconsidered by Commissioner, Devasthan, consequently, rejected appeal vide order Ann.10 dt.19th August, 1997.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner submits that they got their accounts audited by their registered Chartered Accountant M/s. N.S. Rathore & Company which is requirement Under Section 33(2) of the Act but without assigning any reason the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of power under Sub-section (4) of Section 33 passed order Ann.2 for getting accounts of three financial years to be audited by a special auditor which according to the petitioner is an arbitrary exercise of power and is not legally sustainable. Counsel further submits that penalty of Rs. 100/- inflicted vide order Ann.8 is also without authority in the facts of instant case deserves to be set aside. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition where in Para 3 it has been averred that since petitioner failed to submit accounts for three financial years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 despite opportunity afforded vide order dt.29th November, 1996 action was initiated to get their annual accounts for three respective financial years to be audited by special auditor. Counsel submits that in absence of any malafide being pleaded in the writ petition, it is a subjective satisfaction of the authority to get annual accounts of any Trust audited by special auditor in exercise of power under Sub-section 4 which in ordinary course is not required to be interfered with. Counsel further submits that since petitioner failed to comply with the order Ann.2, penalty of Rs. 100/- has rightly been inflicted and there was no provision of appeal or revision against the order Ann.2, the same was rightly rejected by the Commissioner, Devasthan vide order Ann.10 dt.19th August, 1997.