Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahant Ram Saran Das & Anr vs State Of Raj & Ors on 4 May, 2010
Bench: Jagdish Bhalla, M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5111/2004 Mahant Ram Saran Das & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. AND D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2321/2006 Jaipur Sahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. AND D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5650/2007 Mandir Thikana Shri Galtaji . Versus Assistant Commissioner (I), Devasthan Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors. AND D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6607/2004 Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order ::: 04th May, 2010 Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr. Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Bhandari Mr.S.R.Bajwa, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.R.Bajwa, for petitioner in Writ Petition No.5650/2007 and for respondent in Writ Petition No.2321/2006. Mr.A.K.Bhandari,Sr.Adv. with Mr.Kinsukh, for petitioners in Writ Petition No.6607/2004 and for respondent in writ Petition No.2321/2006. Mr.G.K.Garg, for petitioners in Writ Petition No.5111/2004 and for respondent in Writ Petition No.5650/2007. Mr.Kamlakar Sharma, for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2321/2006 and for respondent in Writ Petition No.5650/2007. Mr.Rajendra Prasad, for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5650/2007 and for respondent in Writ Petition No.5111/2004. Mr. G.S.Bapna, Advocate General with Mr.Venketesh Garg for the State Mr.Sagar Mal Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Anil Mehta ] Mr.Bajrang Lal Sharma, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Babu Lal Sharma ] Dr.R.K.Sharma ] Mr.Mahesh Gupta ] Mr.N.K.Maloo ],for the respondents. By the Court:
These writ petitions pertain to Galtapeeth and properties of Thikana Galta. Out of four writ petitions before us, two writ petitions have been filed in public interest. Other two writ petitions were filed before the Single Bench, however, looking to the fact that subject matter therein was same as in the Public Interest Litigations, the writ petitions pending before the Single Bench were called for hearing by the Division Bench. Accordingly, all the writ petitions were heard together.
Learned counsel appearing in the Public Interest Litigations raised two issues for our consideration.
The first issue is regarding the properties of Galtapeeth. It is submitted that Mahant of Galtapeeth had taken those properties to be individual property and put that in the trust so created. The properties are otherwise public properties. The allegation is that not only it was taken to be properties of Mahant but it was further alienated to others, who have been made party to the writ petitions, as the alienation of public property was illegal.
The other issue is as to whether Mahant appointed vide the order dated 09.06.1943 was to administer the properties during his life time or there was a right of succession therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no right of succession exists in the appointment, thus post of Mahant was wrongly taken in succession by successor of late Mahant Ramodaracharya. Looking to aforesaid, it is prayed that the appointment being limited for Mahant Ramodaracharya only, the administration of property should have been relegated to the State Government after his death and the successor of late Mahant Ramodaracharya has no right to be Mahant of Galtapeeth in succession.
Learned counsel appearing for the side opposite submits that Public Interest Litigations are not maintainable in view of the fact that the issues raised in the writ petitions and as have been urged during the course of arguments, are subject matter of enquiry under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959). This is more so when one of the petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5111/2004 has not only made a written representation on the issues narrated above but has even participated in the enquiry. Clarifying the facts, it is submitted that initial representation was made by petitioner - Uma Shanker Sharma followed by another representation by Brij Bihari Agrawal addressing two issues urged before this Court. The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department has already taken up the matter by registering the case Nos.1/2004 and 1/2006. In view of aforesaid, when the grievances raised before this Court are sub judice and would be decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department in view of the provisions of the Act of 1959, the Public Interest Litigations are even not maintainable as the petitioners cannot exhaust two remedies simultaneously.
Learned counsel Shri S.R.Bajwa appearing for respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No. 5111/2004 further submits that they have no objection if the issue of succession of Mahant so as the issue as to whether the property of Galtapeeth/Thikana is individual property or public property is decided by the Assistant Commissioner and further if the petitioner in the writ petition No.2321/2006 makes an application and participate in the hearing, they have no objection.
Learned Advocate General submits that in reply to the writ petition, the State Government has categorically stated that all the issues raised in the writ petitions are subject matter for decision by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsasthan Department, thus writ petitions are not maintainable, rather in the light of the pendency of the matter before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
We have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The issues raised in two Public Interest Litigations have been narrated while dealing with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. The first issue is regarding nature of appointment of Mahant in the year 1943. As to whether the post of Mahant will go in succession to the legal heirs in view of the fact that late Mahant Ramodaracharya is no more. The other issue is that as to whether the property of Galtapeeth/Thikana is public property or property belonging to individual.
According to us, both the issues are pending consideration before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department as it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 (Shri Avdesh Kumar), who is presently holding the post of Mahant. In view of aforesaid, Public Interest Litigations can be disposed of as one and the same issue cannot be decided in Public Interest Litigation, when statutory enquiry under Section 24 of the Act of 1959 is pending for consideration before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department. In view of aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the issues raised before us would be decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department after hearing all the parties and in this regard, the petitioners in the writ petition No.2321/2006 would be at liberty to participate in the hearing by making a proper application and would further be at liberty to substantiate their grounds by submitting necessary documents.
We expect from the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department that he will look into the matter entirely and thereupon record his finding by a speaking order while deciding both the issues. It goes without saying that whatever is the outcome of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, the consequences will follow.
With the aforesaid observation, both the writ petitions by way of Public Interest Litigation are disposed of.
D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5650/2007 Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that in the light of the judgment aforesaid given in Public Interest Litigation Nos. 5111/2004 & 2321/2006, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to take pleas on both the issues before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department .
In view of prayer made, present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6607/2004 Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that so far as the issue of appointment of Committee is concerned, period was of only five years, which has come to an end in the year 2009.
Learned Advocate General, Mr.G.S. Bapna, submits that in view of expiry of period of five years, the issue raised herein in that regard does not survive.
In light of the statement made by learned Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that writ petition of the petitioners may be rendered infructuous to that extent, giving liberty to raise other issue regarding issuance of the notification under Chapter 10, if necessity so arises.
In view of submissions made above, the present writ petition is rendered infructuous and accordingly, same is dismissed as having become infructuous with liberty to petitioners to take legal recourse, regarding issuance of notification under Chapter 10, if necessity so arises.
It is agreed by all the parties that till the matter is decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, they will maintain status quo in respect of the office of Mahant as well as regarding property of Galtapeeth/ Thikana.
(M.N. Bhandari), J. (Jagdish Bhalla) , C.J. Item No.H/9 to H/12 Preety/Jr.P.A.