Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar Son Of Late Sh. ... vs Commissioner, Devasthan Department on 23 October, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1320/2018
Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar Son Of Late Sh. Hotam Singh Tomar,
By Caste Rajput, Resident Of 4, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-
302004 (Raj.) And Plot No. B-28-29, Govind Marg, Raja Park,
Jaipur-302004 (Raj.) Chairman And Settlor Trustee, Indian
Medical Trust, Office-4, Govind Marg Raja Park, Jaipur- 302004
(Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, 2, Meera Marg,
Madhuban, Udaipur
2. Dr. Shobha Tomar Wife Of Dr. Balvir Singh Tomar, Aged
About 67 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of 4, Govind
Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-302004 (Raj.)
3. Assistant Commissioner (First) Devasthan Department,
Office-In Front Of Old Vidhan Sabha, Badi Chaupad,
Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Smt. Urmila Ben Patel Wife Of Sh. Jayantilal Patel, Trustee
Indian Medical Trust, Resident Of 78, K.N.B. Road, Forest
Hill, London, S.E. -23. 3A.G., Local Address-4, Govind
Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-302004 (Raj.)
5. Dr. Anurag Tomar Son Of Dr. Balvir Singh Tomar,
Managing Trustee, Indian Medical Trust, Resident Of 4,
Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur -302004 (Raj.) At Present
Lodged In Central Jail, Ghatgate, Jaipur
6. Dr. Swati Tomar Wife Of Dr. Anurag Tomar, Trustee Indian
Medical Trust, Resident Of 4, Govind Marg, Raja Park,
Jaipur-302004 (Raj.)
----Respondents
(2) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1321/2018 Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar Son Of Late Sh. Hotam Singh Tomar, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of 4, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur- 302004 (Raj.) And Plot No. B-28-29, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-302004 (Raj.) Chairman And Settlor Trustee, Indian Medical Trust, Office-4, Govind Marg Raja Park, Jaipur-
302004 (Raj.)
(2 of 4) [SAW-1320/2018]
----Appellant
Versus
1. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, 2, Meera Marg, Madhuban, Udaipur
2. Dr. Shobha Tomar Wife Of Dr. Balvir Singh Tomar, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of 4, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-302004 (Raj.)
3. Assistant Commissioner (First) Devasthan Department, Office-In Front Of Old Vidhan Sabha, Badi Chaupad, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Smt. Urmila Ben Patel Wife Of Sh. Jayantilal Patel, Trustee Indian Medical Trust, Resident Of 78, K.N.B. Road, Forest Hill, London, S.E. -23. 3A.G, Local Address- 4, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-302004 (Raj.)
5. Dr. Anurag Tomar Son Of Dr. Balvir Singh Tomar, Managing Trustee, Indian Medical Trust, Resident Of 4, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur -302004 (Raj.) At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Ghatgate, Jaipur
6. Dr. Swati Tomar Wife Of Dr. Anurag Tomar, Trustee Indian Medical Trust, Resident Of 4, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur-302004 (Raj.)
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sarans Saini HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 23/10/2018
1. Counsel as above appears for the contesting respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the appellant of appeals bearing No.35/2018 and 36/2018 currently awaiting decision before the Commissioner Devasthan. It is the case of the appellant that the order(s) challenged in the two appeals was (3 of 4) [SAW-1320/2018] earlier the subject matter of challenge in appeal Nos.16/2018 and 17/2018 which were dismissed by the Commissioner Devasthan and thus the two appeals are not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner Devasthan has not been urged by the appellant before the Commissioner Devasthan and that the writ petitions were filed when the appellant received notice in the two appeals.
3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant granting liberty to the appellant to raise the objection regarding jurisdiction of the Commissioner Devasthan to decide the two appeals. The appellant apprehends that the impugned order may be read as if the Commissioner Devasthan has to decide the two appeals on issue of jurisdiction as well as on the merits.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 states that the respondent No.2 has no objection if the appeals are disposed of directing Commissioner Devasthan to first decide the preliminary objection concerning the maintainability of the two appeals bearing Nos.35/2018 and 36/2018.
5. Needless to state the issue of jurisdiction needs to be decided with reference to earlier two appeals filed by the respondents which were disposed of by the Commissioner Devasthan and in respect of which decision the stand of the respondents is that liberty was granted by the Division Bench of this Court to file fresh appeals, an assertion denied by the appellant.
(4 of 4) [SAW-1320/2018]
6. Needless to state the previous decisions would be considered by the Commissioner Devasthan on the issue of maintainability of the two appeals.
7. The two appeals are disposed of in above terms. (G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ KKC/JKP/S-59-60 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)