Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Indian Medical Trust And Anr vs Dr Balveer Singh Tomar And Anr on 1 August, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4507 / 2017
1. Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Public Trust), Through Dr.
Anurag Tomar, Son of Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, Aged About 42
Years, by Caste Rajput, resident of 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
Managing Trusty, Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg.
Office - 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
2. Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Tomar Wife of Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, Aged
About 62 Years, by caste Rajput, resident of 4, Govind Marg,
Jaipur. Vice-chairman Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg.
Office - 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar Son of Late Shri Hotam Singh Tomar,
aged About 66 Years, by caste Rajpute, resident of 4, Govind
Marg, Jaipur., Chairman Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust)
Reg. Office - 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur
2. Presiding Officer, Assistant Commissioner (First), Devsthan
Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji, Opp. Vidhansabha,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3999 / 2017
1. Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Public Trust), Through Dr. Anurag Tomar, Son of Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, Aged About 42 Years, by Caste Rajput, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Managing Trusty, Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg. Office - 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur
2. Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Tomar Wife of Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 62 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Managing Trusty, Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg. Office - 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur
3. Dr. Swati Tomar W/o Dr. Anurag Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 40 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Managing Trusty, Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg. Office - 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur
----Petitioners Versus
1. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar Son of Late Shri Hotam Singh Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 66 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Managing Trusty, Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg.
(2 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Office - 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur
2. Presiding Officer, Assistant Commissioner (First), Devsthan Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji, Opp. Vidhansabha, Jaipur
----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1648 / 2017
1. Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Public Trust), Through Dr. Anurag Tomar, Son of Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 42 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Managing Trusty, Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg. Office- 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
2. Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Tomar Wife of Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 62 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Vice- chairman Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg. Office-4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar Son of Late Shri Hotam Singh Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 66 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur., Chairman Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Trust) Reg. Office- 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
2. Presiding Officer, Assistant Commissioner (First), Devsthan Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji, Opp. Old Vidhansabha, Jaipur.
3. The Sub - Registrar Stamps (V), Registration & Stamps Department, Collectorate, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 / 2017
1. Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Public Trust) Through Dr. Anurag Tomar, S/o Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 42 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Managing Trustee, Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Public Trust) Reg. Office - 4 Govind Marg, Jaipur.
2. Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Tomar W/o. Dr. Balvver Singh Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 62 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Vice Chairman Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Public Trust) Reg. Office
- 4 Govind Marg, Jaipur.
(3 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017]
----Petitioners Versus
1. Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Udaipur
2. Presiding Officer, Assistant Commissioner (First) Devsthan Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji, Opp. Old Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur.
3. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar S/o. Late Shri Hotam Singh Tomar, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 66 Years, 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur. Chairman Indian Medical Trust (Charitable Public Trust) Reg. Office
- 4 Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7897 / 2017
1. Indian Medical Trust (Public Charitable Trust) Through Its Chairman Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, B-28-29, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar S/o Late Sh. Hotam Singh, Aged About 68 Years, R/o B-28-29, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Assistant Commissioner (First), Devasthan Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji, Opp. Old Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur.
2. Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Tomar W/o. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
3. Dr. Anurag Tomar, R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg, Mr. S.D. Khaspuria For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Achintya Kaushik _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 01/08/2017 (4 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Inextricably linked are the facts and legal issues in the writ applications instituted between the parties; and therefore, the matters have been taken up together for final adjudication, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, at this stage.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts are: that the "Indian Medical Trust" Deed was executed on 23 rd February, 2000, wherein Smt. Rajeshwari Devi (Chairman) and Shri Jayantilal Patel (Vice Chairman), were Settler Trustees (Recital). The Trust Deed included other Trustees namely Urmilaben Patel (Trustee), Dr. Shobha Tomar (Trustee) and Dr. Anurag Tomar (Managing Trustee). On 26th August, 2000, Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, made an order incorporating the Trust. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi died on 23rd December, 2000. An application under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short, the 'Act of 1959'), was instituted to designate the respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, as Chairman and Settler Trustee. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, made an order on 20 th August, 2002, accepting the change reflecting Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, as Chairman and Settler Trustee as per contemplation in the Trust Deed. On 17th March, 2012, Jayantilal Patel and Urmilaben Patel resigned from the Trust. On 4th January, 2015, Alpa Patel addressed a communication to Jayantilal Patel, expressing her disinclination towards the post of Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee. On 31 st January, 2015, Jayantilal Patel, resigned from Trust; nominating petitioner-Dr. Shobha Tomar, in his place. The communication also reflects disinclination of Alpa Patel, but did not refer to any communication as such. On 31 st January, 2015, a notice for Meeting to be held on 2 nd February, 2015, with Agendas, was sent to the Trustees. The meeting held on 2 nd (5 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] February, 2015, reflects to have been Chaired by Shri Jayantilal Patel. In the meeting Shri Jayantilal Patel's resignation was accepted. Dr. Shobha Tomar was appointed as Vice Chairman. Dr. Swati Tomar was inducted as Trustee. On 13th February, 2015, proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, who made an order on 16 th April, 2015, incorporating the changes made in meeting held on 2 nd February, 2015. Respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, learned about the meeting held on 2nd February, 2015, and the proceedings initiated under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, so also of the order made on 16 th April, 2015, while he applied for certain documents for the University purposes. Having learned of the facts aforesaid, respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, instituted an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, whereupon case No.01/2016, was registered and order was made by the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, on 4 th August, 2016, restraining the petitioners-Dr. Shobha Tomar and Dr. Anurag Tomar, from holding any meeting without the presence and consent of respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar. The restraint order also prohibited the petitioners from any communication, with any Bank or Govt. Departments etc., without consent of respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar. The petitioners filed reply to the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, on 17th August, 2016.
3. On institution of writ application No.12078/2016 (Indian Medical Trust Vs. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar), an interim order on further proceedings was made on 7th September, 2016, by this Court. An application under Section 226(3) was filed by respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, on 9th January, 2017, seeking vacation of the interim order dated 7th September, 2016, made on the writ application (6 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] No.12078/2016, instituted on 29th August, 2016. Further, respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, lodged an FIR No.454/2016, against the petitioners, at Police Station Chandwaji, for offence under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar on 2nd January, 2017, held a meeting and inducted 6 Trustees (all Daughters & Sons-in-Law), while suspending the petitioners (Dr. Shobha Tomar & Dr. Anurag Tomar), for Anti Trust Activities till the final outcome of FIR No.454/2016. Amendments were made in Trust Deed by execution of Supplementary Trust Deed on 3rd January, 2017, and an application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, was instituted before the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devasthan Department, Jaipur on 13 th January, 2017, with reference to meeting held on 2 nd January, 2017, whereupon case No. 06/2017, was registered. On 8 th February, 2017, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, moved an application in case No. 01/2016, for withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1959. Simultaneously, petitioner-Dr. Shobha Tomar, moved an application in case No. 06/2017, with reference to proceedings instituted under Section 23 of the Act of 1959; consenting to induction of six new Trustees before the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur. On 9th February, 2017, the petitioners (Dr. Shobha Tomar and Dr. Anurag Tomar), withdrew the writ applications [SBCWP No. 12078/2016 and 12084/2016], wherein they assailed proceedings with reference to case No. 01/2016; which was fixed to 23 rd February, 2017, for affirmation of withdrawal of application by respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar. However, on 15th February, 2017, respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, instituted fresh application under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, seeking further inquiry in the factum of resignation of Jayantilal Patel (7 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] and Urmilaben Patel on 17 th March, 2012 (Case No. 01/2017). Hence, petitioner-Dr. Shobha Tomar, withdrew her consent as to induction of six new Trustees in Case No. 06/2017, on 22nd February, 2017. Respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, also withdrew his application to withdraw Case No. 01/2016, on 22nd February, 2017. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioners appearing before the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, agreed for final hearing in Case No. 01/2016, on 23rd February, 2017.
4. On 3rd March, 2017, another meeting was held by Dr. Shobha Tomar, Dr. Anurag Tomar and Dr. Swati Tomar, removing respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, from Chairmanship of the Trust. An application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, was filed on 14 th March, 2017, whereupon Case No.32/2017, was registered, while reply was filed to the proceedings under Section 23 in Case No. 06/2017. Arguments were concluded on behalf respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar in Case No. 01/2016, on 13th April, 2017.
5. Respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, has instituted Writ Application No.7897/2017, in the capacity of Chairman of Indian Medical Trust (Indian Medical Trust and Anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Ors.), praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.1), to discharge his public duty of furnishing the status report as to compliance of its order dated 4 th August, 2016, and further to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent No.2 and 3 (Dr. Shobha Tomar and Dr. Anurag Tomar), for willful and deliberate contempt of the restraint order dated 4 th August, 2016, made by the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, in the proceedings in Case No.01/2016, under Section 24 of the Act of 1959.
(8 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017]
6. Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application No.4507/2017, invited the attention of this Court to order dated 7 th September, 2016, made on earlier writ application No. 12078/2016 (Indian Medical Trust Vs. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar and Anr.), at motion stage; staying further proceedings before Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur; learned counsel asserted that the writ application was withdrawn on 9th February, 2017, in view of the fact that respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, applied for withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1959. However, when the respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, played a mischief by institution of a fresh application on 15 th February, 2017, before the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, seeking permission to withdraw his earlier application (to withdraw the proceedings) and to pursue the matter on merits; the petitioners instituted a misc. application [S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 92/2017], for a re-look and necessary rectification/modification to safeguard and protect the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioners with reference to the order dated 9th February, 2017, made dismissing the writ application No.12078/2017 on 9th February, 2017, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. More particularly, in the face of the application for withdrawal submitted by respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, for withdrawal of application leading to proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1959. However, while this Court declined to re-look/modify the order dated 9th February, 2017; reserved liberty to the petitioners to file writ application afresh, raising grievances and highlighting the conduct of respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar; as would be evident from the dated 24th March, 2017.
(9 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017]
7. Mr. Garg, referring to Clause 8 of the Trust Deed dated 23 rd February, 2000, asserted that Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, was Chairman and Settler Trustee while Jayantilal Patel was Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee and other Trustees were Urmilaben Patel, Dr. Shobha Tomar and Dr. Anurag Tomar, was Managing Trustee. According to the learned counsel, Clause 8(c) of the Trust Deed, specifically contemplated that only Settler Trustees, jointly were entitled to appoint other Trustees. Further, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi W/o late Shri Hotam Singh (Settler Trustee), did not appoint respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, even as a Trustee in the Trust for she had no faith in him.
8. Referring to order dated 26 th August, 2000, in case No.12/2000, it is pointed out that all the five Trustees (Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, Chairman and Settler Trustee, Shri Jayantilal Patel, Vice Chairman Settler Trustee, Urmilaben Patel-Trustee, Dr. Shobha Tomar-Trustee and Dr. Anurag Tomar-Managing Trustee), were inducted as Settler Trustees for life time. It is further contended that order of incorporation of Indian Medical Trust dated 26th August, 2000, would further reflect that only Settler Trustees, were jointly entitled to induct Trustees in addition. Further, the enquiry conducted, as contemplated under Section 17(2) read with Section 18(2) of the Act of 1959, was published in the news- paper (Dainik Navjyoti), inviting objections as to the incorporation of the Trust, but no objection was registered by anyone including respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar. Furthermore, factum of death of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi on 23rd December, 2000, was also incorporated after a notice under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 and information under Clause 8(d) of the Trust Deed, to the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, wherein Dr. Anurag Tomar was indicated as Managing Trustee. Necessary entries were made as contemplated (10 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, as would be evident from the order dated 20th August, 2002.
9. Learned counsel has also referred to communication dated 4 th January, 2015, wherein Alpa Patel, addressed a request to her father- Shri Jayantilal Patel (Vice-Chairman and Settler Trustee), expressing her disinclination to shoulder the responsibility as Settler Trustee as well as Vice Chairman of Indian Medical Trust. As per Clause 8 (ya) of the Trust Deed, in the event of resignation of Jayantilal Patel, his daughter Alpa Patel was to occupy his place in the Trust. However, Alpa Patel, was not inclined to do so, on account of her personal and domestic reasons as well as for she was not keeping good health. Alpa Patel, therefore, proposed for nomination of Dr. Shobha Tomar, as Settler Trustee as well as Vice Chairman of the Trust.
10. Referring to another communication dated 31 st January, 2015, addressed to the Chairman and Managing Trustee, Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur, by Shri Jayantilal Patel; learned counsel further pointed out that while Shri Jayantilal Patel, resigned he simultaneously proposed for appointment of Dr. Shobha Tomar, as Settler Trustee as well as Vice Chairman of Indian Medical Trust. Hence, Dr. Anurag Tomar, Managing Trustee of the Indian Medical Trust, issued urgent notice on 31 st January, 2015, to the Settler Trustees and other Trustees for a meeting to be held on 2nd February, 2015, at 4.00 PM, at the office of Indian Medical Trust on the agendas detailed out therein. Notices were duly served on all the Settler Trustees as well as other Trustees including respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar. The minutes of the meeting held on 2nd February, 2015, would reflect that resignation of Shri Jayantilal Patel from Trust as Settler Trustee as well as from the post of Vice Chairman, was accepted unanimously and Dr. Shobha Tomar occupied (11 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] the Chairmanship while she was also taken as Settler Trustee in place of Shri Jayantilal Patel, as well as Vice Chairman of the Trust as proposed by Shri Jayantilal Patel. Induction of Dr. Swati Tomar, as Trustee, by Settler Trustee and Vice Chairman-Dr. Shobha Tomar, was confirmed unanimously by all the Trustees in the meeting. The report of changes recorded in form No.8, was approved by the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur on 16 th April, 2015, as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act of 1959. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no provision for "review" by the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, of proceedings under Section 23 of the Act of 1959. Aside that, if the respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, was aggrieved of the action aforesaid; an appeal could have been instituted under Section 20 of the Act of 1959. Hence, notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur on the application instituted under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, by Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar; is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the notice was assailed before this Court in SBCWP No.12078/2016, wherein an interim order was granted by this Court on 7 th September, 2016.
11. Referring to Audit report conducted on 16th December, 2013, learned counsel urged that Clause 10 of the audit report, would reflect that Shri Jayantilal Patel, was indicated as Vice Chairman; and therefore, his resignation of year 2012, is of no help to the respondent. Moreover, Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, got his appointment as Chairperson in NIMS University, by playing fraud, which was objected to by Dr. Anurag Tomar, Managing Trustee of the Trust, as would be evident from communication dated 13th July, 2016, which is the cause of annoyance and dispute. Moreover, criminal proceedings instituted against Dr. (12 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Balveer Singh Tomar, speaks volumes about his conduct and character. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Kalabharati Advisetising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and ors.:AIR 2010 SC 3745, with reference to scope of review.
12. Per contra: Mr. R. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Achintya Kaushik, appearing on behalf of respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, reiterating the stand in of the counter affidavit to the writ applications, including writ application No. 4507/2017; asserted that challenge to notice dated 28th June, 2017, issued on an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, instituted by the respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar and other inter-linked issues raised by institution of the writ applications, are not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, application under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, seeking further enquiry into the decision dated 16th April, 2015, incorporating changes in terms of Section 23 (2) of the Act of 1959, details out the illegal manner contrary to the stipulations in the Trust Deed.
13. According to the learned counsel, the meeting held on 2 nd February, 2015, was not validly constituted meeting as projected by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur, for notices for the meeting held on 2nd February, 2015, were sent at 4.10 PM on 31 st January, 2015, through registered post and through courier. The alleged meeting aforesaid is stated to be held on receipt of resignation dated 31 st January, 2015, itself by Shri Jayantilal Patel, the Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee of (13 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Indian Medical Trust; who is a non-resident Indian, settled in England.
14. Further, the notices for the meeting were sent on Saturday 31st January, 2015 at 4.10 PM and the meeting was scheduled to be held on 2nd February, 2015 (Monday). Thus, the conduct of the petitioners speaks volumes of the manner and manipulation. The notices were sent in a manner so that they may never be received by the answering respondent well in time. Moreover, the meeting held on 2nd February, 2015, in fact, was a sham that was created by the petitioners, to further their own agendas in order to get herself (Dr. Shobha Tomar), illegally appointed as Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee of the Trust and for inclusion of Dr. Swati Tomar as one of the trustee in the Trust.
15. Learned Senior counsel asserted that the Trust Deed in its recital made it very clear and unambiguous that Shri Jayantilal Patel and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi (Mother of respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar), were initial settler trustees of the Trust, who had contributed the initial fund to the Trust. Clause 8(a) of the Trust Deed stipulated the settler trustees to be lifetime trustees. Clause 8(c) further contemplated that only the settler trustees were entrusted with the power to appoint fresh/new trustees or other trustees. Clause 8(d) further contemplated that on death or unwillingness of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, the respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, would become the settler trustee and Chairman of the Trust. Thus, respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, became Settler Trustee and Chairman of the Trust on the death of Smt. (14 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Rajeshwari Devi (Settler Trustee and Chairman). These facts are fortified in view of the order dated 20 th August, 2002, made by Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur.
16. Learned counsel also pointed out that Clause 8(e) of the Trust Deed, further contemplated a condition to the effect that on death or unwillingness of Shri Jayantilal Patel, his daughter, Alpa Patel would become the Settler Trustee and the Vice Chairman of the Trust. Hence, the Trust Deed is clear and unambiguous on this issue as well. Therefore, Shri Jayantilal Patel, had no right to nominate any other successor. Only Alpa Patel on resignation of Shri Jayantilal Patel was to become Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee, automatically. Hence, in the event of Alpa Patel's refusal, the post of Vice Chairman would stand rescinded from the Trust forever.
17. Referring to Clause 11(a)(5) of the Trust Deed, learned counsel emphasized that membership of Trustee would stand terminated ipso facto on tender of resignation letter by the member and for that no meeting or approval is required in absence of any such stipulation in the Trust Deed. Thus, Shri Jayantilal Patel, in the factual matrix aforesaid, neither could not have presided over the alleged meeting that was convened on 2 nd February, 2015, nor he could have proposed name of Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Tomar as Vice Chairman. Therefore, the process adopted was completely contrary to the contemplations under the Trust Deed, and hence, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, Shri Jayantilal Patel and Smt. Urmila Ben Patel, in fact resigned (15 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] from the Trust way-back on 17th March, 2012, after having received the loan amount that they had advanced to the Trust. Shri Jayantilal Patel, in fact, in his resignation also specified that none of his successors or assigns would claim trusteeship in the Trust. Thus, resignation dated 31st January, 2015, is a fraudulent document created to introduce Shri Jayantilal Patel, in the midst of the Trust proceedings for oblivious oblique reasons purposes. Therefore, the entire proceedings are per se illegal in view of the principle that "Fraud unravels everything".
18. Learned counsel further urged that provisions of the Trust Deed are sacrosanct and unless contrary to law of the land or obnoxious or offending the sense of fairness or being an absurdity; have to be a strictly interpreted and complied with. In support of the plea reliance is placed on the opinion in the case of Pavankumar Jain Vs Priyavadan Ambalal Patel, Gujarat High Court in SBCWP No. 7662/2013, decided on 12th September, 2013.
19. Referring to the text of Section 24 of the Act of 1959, learned counsel pointed out that proceedings under Section 24 in fact are not adversarial litigation. The role of Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, in fact, is that of an informant. However, it is to the discretion of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, to enquire into the facts placed before it and to consider whether they are relevant facts as such or not. Section 24 of the Act of 1959, specifically contemplates to the effect that if certain aspects, which have not been considered during enquiry in terms of Section (16 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] 23, may further be enquired by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Section 24.
20. For the relevant and important provisions of the Trust Deed, governing the changes that were sought to be made in terms of alleged meeting dated 2nd February, 2015; were not placed before the Assistant Commissioner while proceedings instituted under Section 23, which culminated into order dated 16 th April, 2015; hence, proceedings under Section 24, was the efficacious remedy available to the respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, which he availed of. According to learned counsel scope of the Section 24 of the Act of 1959, has been discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5111/2004 (Mahant Ram Saran Das Vs. State of Rajasthan); decided on 4th May, 2010, and confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Sahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2014) 5 SCC 530.
21. Resisting the prayer of the petitioners for a restraint order against respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, with reference to continuance with the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1959 (Case No. 01/2016), in the backdrop of the application dated 8th February, 2017, preferred by the respondent in the face of the order dated 9th February, 2017, made by this Court in SBCWP No. 12078/2016; learned counsel emphasized, that the writ application was in fact withdrawan by the petitioners in view of the fact that an application for withdrawal of the concerned proceedings had been moved by the respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar.
(17 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017]
22. According to the learned counsel, the application for withdrawal in case No. 01/2016, was instituted by respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar on 8th February, 2017, on a clear understanding that the petitioners would consent for the induction of six new trustees, which was moved by the petitioners in case No. 06/2017, on 8th February, 2017. For the petitioner-Dr. Shobha Tomar, later on withdrew her consent; the answering respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, was left with no alternative but to withdraw his earlier application on 22 nd February, 2017. However, the order sheets drawn by the respondent No. 2, on 22 nd February, 2017, 7th March, 2017, 9th March, 2017 and 16th March, 2017, would make it apparent that petitioners are vigorously contesting the matter before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur. Order dated 23rd February, 2017, would further reflect that petitioners consented for final disposal of the matter pending before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur.
23. While responding to the case setup by the petitioners in SBCWP No. 1648/2017 (Indian Medical Trust Vs. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar), wherein meeting date 2nd January, 2017, and decisions taken therein incorporating new trustees in the Indian Medical Trust as well as removal of certain trustees, besides making certain amendments to the original Trust Deed dated 23rd February, 2000; learned counsel would submit that Section 23 of the Act of 1959, is a complete code in itself, contemplating procedure to be followed and enquiry to be conducted before (18 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] changes are incorporated in the constitution of the Trust. Hence, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue the remedy before the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devasthan Department, Jaipur, wherein the petitioners have already appeared through their counsel on 16th February, 2017.
24. Learned counsel would further urge that after resignation of Shri Jayantilal Patel from the position of Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee along with his line of succession, as contemplated under Clause 8(e) of the Trust Deed; was not adhered to. Thus, the post of Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee stood rescinded leaving respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, as the sole surviving Settler Trustee. Hence, in the face of contemplation under Clause 8(c) and 11(b), the discretion for appointment of fresh/additional trustees, lies with the answering respondent sole Settler Trustee, unanimously. Referring to Section 13(2) of the General Clause Act, 1897, learned counsel asserted that words in singular form shall include the plural and vice versa, meaning thereby that in the present scenario, respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, become the sole Settler Trustee on the resignation of Shri Jayantilal Patel. Thus, the appointment of additional Trustees, was the discretion of the sole answering respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, Chairman and Settler Trustee.
25. Responding to the case setup by the petitioners in SBCWP No. 6047/2017 (Indian Medical Trust Vs. Commissioner Devasthan & Ors.), learned counsel emphasized that the challenge projected by the petitioners to the order dated 6 th April, 2017, made by (19 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, vide which their application imputing malafides; it is asserted that the application has been rightly dismissed and calls for no interference by this Court, in view of contemplation under Section 8 of the Act of 1959, for the respondent No.1, has no role in assigning the work or jurisdiction to a particular Assistant Commissioner.
26. Further, respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, has instituted writ application No. 7897/2017, in the capacity of Chairman of Indian Medical Trust (Indian Medical Trust & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.), seeking writ of mandamus to direct the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devasthan, Jaipur, to discharge his public duty and furnish the status report as to compliance of its own order dated 4th August, 2016. It is further prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against respondent No. 2 and 3 (Dr. Shoba Tomar and Dr. Anuraj Tomar) for willful and deliberate contempt and restraint order dated 4th August, 2016, with reference to proceedings in case No. 01/2016.
27. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.
28. At the very outset, it will be profitable to take note of the action/orders impugned in the four writ applications institued by the petitioners.
(A) In writ application No. 3999/2017, the petitioners are seekig quashment of notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner-I, (20 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Devasthan, Jaipur, dated 17th February, 2017, with reference to initiation of proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, as to dubious resignation of Sh. Jayantilal Patel on 17th March, 2012. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the Assistant Commisioner, not to review its order dated 16 th April, 2015, incorporating changes in the Trust Deed inducting Dr. Shobha faction and to further restrain respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, from withdrawing his application for withdrawal of the proceedings in case No. 01/2016.
(B) In writ application No. 1648/2017, the petitioners are seeking quashment of resolutions passed in meeting held by respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, dated 2nd January, 2017, and to quash notice dated 13th January, 2017, with reference to the registration of new Trust Deed. Prayer has also been made to quash the Ameded Trust Deed dated 2nd February, 2017, registered on 3rd January, 2017. Initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents under Section 81 and 82 of Registration Act, 1908, for making false statemeent, delivering false copies or translations, impersonation and abatement, is also requested. (C) In writ application No. 6047/2017, the petitioners have prayed for transfer of proceedings of case No. 01/2016, to another authority. Quashment of order dated 6th April, 2017, is also sought, whereby the Assistant Commissioner-I, Desthan Department, Jaipur, declined the petitioners application for transfer of case to the another Authority. Quashment is also sought of the order dated 13 th April, 2017, for the Assistant (21 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Commissioner, declined to stay the proceedings before it for there was no stay granted by the High Court at the relevant time; and (D) In writ application No. 4507/2017, the petitioners have prayed to quash notice dated 28th June, 2016, issued to the petitiones, for initiation of proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, in case No. 01/2016. The petitioners have also prayed for a restraint order directing the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, not "Review" its order dated 16 th April, 2016, wherein changes were incorporated in the Trust Deed inducting Dr. Shobha Tomar faction. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, restraining him for withdrawing his application instituted for withdrawal of proceedings of case No. 01/2016.
29. Indisputably, "Indian Medical Trust Deed" was executed on 23rd February, 2000, wherein Smt. Rajeshwari Devi (Chairman) and Shri Jayantilal Patel (Vice Chairman), were Settler Trustees. Other trustees included Urmina Ben Patel, Dr. Shobha Tomar and Dr. Anurag Tomar (Managing Trustee). The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur, made the order dated 26 th August, 2000, incorporating the changes in the Trust. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, (Chairman), Settler Trustee, died on 23rd December, 2000. Respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, became Chairman and Settler Trustee, as is reflected from application under Section 23 of the Act of 1959, instituted on 15 th January, 2001, and order made by the Assistant Commissioner-I, Devasthan, Jaipur, on 20th August, 2002, incorporating the (22 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] changes as to acceptance of respondent- Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, as Chairman and Settler Trustee.
30. While the petitioners claim to have initiated the proceedings on 31st January, 2015, by issuance of notice for meeting to be held on 2nd February, 2015, owing to resignation of Shri Jayantilal Patel, as Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee on 31st January, 2015, and Alpa Patel, experssing her disinclination to accept the post of Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee, vide Communication dated 4th January, 2015, whereas respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, claims that the meeting held on 2nd February, 2015, was a manipulation and fraud played by the petitioners for Shri Jayantilal Patel and Urmila Ben Patel, had already resigned from the Trust on 17th March, 2012, and therefore, the initition of proceedings and as a consequence the alleged meeting held on 2nd February, 2015, are void ab initio.
31. From the factual matrix and materials available on record, it is not in dispute that notices for the meeting that was to be held on 2nd February, 2015 (Monday), were issued on 31st January, 2015 at 4.10 PM on Saturday. Be that as it may, on one of the notice that was addressed to respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, through unique courier, reflects to have been received by unique courier on 30th January, 2015 and delivered on 31st January, 2015. Thus, the notice was delivered to unique courier 30 th January, 2015, while admittedly, the notice was issued on 31st January, 2015. Hence, the plea of fraud as setup on behalf of the respondent as to issuance of notice on 31st January, 2015 (23 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] (Saturday), for the meeting that was scheduled to be held on 2nd February (Monday); has substance.
32. Admittedly, the Trust Deed in its recital reflects that Shri Jayantilal Patel and Smt. Rajeshwari Dei (mother of the respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar), were the initial Settler Trustees of the Trust, who contributed to the initial fund of the Trust. The Settler Trustees were lifetime Trustees as per Clause 6(a) of the Trust Deed. The Settler Trustees only were entrusted with the power to appoint fresh/new Trustees. The respondent - Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, became Settler Trustee and Chairman of the Trust owing to the contemplation under Clause 8(d) of the Trust Deed, which specifically stipulated to the effect that on death or unwillingness of Smt. Rameshwari Devi; Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar was to be conferred with the status of Chairman and Settler Trustee, as stipulated therein. These facts are also substantiated from the order dated 20th August, 2002, made by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur.
33. Further, Clause 8(e) of the Trust Deed contemplated conferrment of status and position on death or unwillingness of Shri Jayantilal Patel, on his daughter-Alpa Patel, who would become the Settler Trustee and the Vice Chairman of the Trust. Thus, contemplations under the Trust Deed are clear and unambiguous on the issues aforesaid.
34. Shri Jayantilal Patel, resigned from the position of Vice Chairman and Settler Trustee of the "Indian Medical Trust" on 17 th March, 2012. It will be relevant to take note of the contents of the (24 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] resignation by Shri Jayantilal Patel, dated 17 th March, 2012, which reads thus:
"To, The Chairman, Indian Medical Trust 4, Goving Marg, Jaipur-302004 Sub: RESIGNATION FROM THE POSITION OF VICE CHAIRMAN & TRUSTEE OF INDIAN MEDICAL TRUST Sir, I am Vice Chairman & Trustees of the abovenamed trust since 23.02.2000. and have been carrying out my duties and responsibilities as entrusted to me to the best of my abilities since then.
That due to ill health & personal diffculty I am no longer in position to carry out my responsibilities and therefor wish to resign from the position of vice Chairman & Trustee of Indian Medical Trust.
I further state that after my resignation, any of my successor and/or assigns would not claim trusteesship or any other position on the trust by virtue of my ever being the Vice Chairman & Trustee of the Indian Medical Trust. This communication may be considered as my resignation and may kindly be accepted frothwith.
Regards.
Jayanti Lal Patel S/o Sh. Magan Bhai Patel Address:
80, canonbie Road, Forest Hill, SE23 3 AG, LONDON, UK"
35. In both of the resignation letters dated 17 th March, 2012 and 31st January, 2015, address of Shri Jayanti Lal Patel, is reflected as 80, Canonble Road, Forest Hill, SE23 3 AG, London, U.K. It is (25 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] surprising that the communication resignation dated 31st January, 2015, reflecting address of Shri Jayantilal Patel, in London, U.K.; was made available at Jaipur on the same date i.e. 31st January, 2015. Further, the resignation tendered by Shri Jayantilal Patel on 17th March, 2012, as Settler Trustee and Vice Chairman, is sought to be explained pleading that resignation was not accepted either on 27th March, 2012 or on any subsequent date. In this referene, it will be relevant to take note of the contents of the Trust Deed under Clause 11, which contemplates thus:
"11- U;kl vekurnkjksa dk mRrjkf/kdkj o lnL; lekfIr %& v½ fuEufyf[kr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ls U;kl vekurnkj U;kl lnL;rk ls lekIr gks tk;saxs%& 1& e`R;q ij]] ;k 2& ;fn fcuk vuqefr ds iw.kZ nks lky rd og U;kl dh cSBdks esa mifLFkr u gks] ;k 3& ;fn og fnokfy;k gks tk;s] ;k 4& ;fn og ikxy gks tk;s ;k vU; dkj.kksa ls dk;Z djus ds dkfcy u jgsa] ;k 5& ;fn og vius in ls U;kl dks R;kx&i= ns] ;k 6& ;fn bls vU; lHkh U;kl vekurnkj gVus dk dgsa ;k ,slk djus dh fourh djsaA ¼c½ vfrfjDr U;kl vekurnkj fu;qfDr dk ;k vekurnkj dk fjDr LFkku iwfrZ dk vf/kdkj dsoy U;kl lEikfnrdrkZ U;klh ¼lsVyj&VªLVh½ dks gksxkA ¼l½ ;fn dHkh Hkh bl U;kl&i= }kjk fu;qDr vFkok vU; fu;qDr U;kl vekurnkj dh e`R;q gks tkrh gS ;k og yxkrkj fcuk vuqefr ds nks o"kZ rd cSBdksa esa vuqifLFkr jgrk gS ;k og fnokfy;k gks tkrk gS ;k og R;kx&i= ns nsrk gS ;k ikxy ;k dk;Z ds dkfcy ugha jgrk ;k mls vU; vekurnkj gVk nsa ;k gVus dks dgsa rks u;sa U;kl vekurnkj dks os lHkh vf/kdkj gksaxs tks fd bl U;kl&i= }kjk vU; lHkh vekurnkjsa dks vf/kdkj fn;s x;s gSA ¼n½ ;g lHkh U;kl vekurnkjksa] muds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa] dk;Zdkjh o iz'kklfud O;fDr;ksa ,oa izfrfuf/k;ksa ds fy;s ck/;dkjh gksxk muds U;klh ds :i esa---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- uofu;qDr vekurnkj dks gLrkUrfjr djsaA blds fy;s fd;k x;k dksbZ Hkh O;; U;kl ogu djsaxsA"
36. Thus, a glance of the contemplation under Clause 11 (A)5, would reflect that membership of Trustee stands terminated on tender of resignation letter for which no meeting or approval is needed for there is no contemplation to that effect in the Trust (26 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Deed. Thus, in the singular facts aforesaid, Shri Jayantilal Patel, could have neither presided over the meeting that was allegedly convened on 2nd February, 2015, nor he could have proposed name of the petitioner-Dr. Shobha Tomar, as Vice Chairman. A glance of resignation tendered by Shri Jayantilal Patel on 17 th March, 2012, after having received the loan amount that was advanced to the Trust, would also reflect that none of his successors or assigns were to claim membership/trusteeship in the Trust. Hence, the document reflecting resignation dated 31st January, 2015, appears to be a document created and cannot be relied upon. Contemplations and provisions of the Trust Deed are inalienable and unless contrary to law of the land or obnoxious or offending the sense of fairness or being an absurdity; have to be a strictly interpreted and complied with allowing full play.
37. A glance of text of Section 24 of the Act of 1959 would further reflect that if certain aspects, which have not been considered during enquiry in terms of Section 23, may be further inquired by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Section 24 of the Act of 1959. For the relevant and important material provisions of the Trust Deed which were sought to be changed in terms of alleged meeting dated 2nd February, 2015; which culminated into order dated 16 th April, 2015; were incorporated in absence of material particulars rather as a consequence of a meeting not validly constituted and was not subject matter of the enquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 23. Hence, further enquiry in the prescribed manner cannot be said to be a "review"
(27 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] for the remedy is efficacious and statutory as provided under Section 24 of the Act of 1959.
38. In the case of Mahant Ramsaran (supra), the Apex Court of the land explaining the scope, powers and juridiction of the Assistant Commissioner under the Act of 1959, in no uncertain terms, observed thus:
"25. Chapter 5 of the Act covers Sections 16 to 29 and it deals with Registration process of a public trust. As per Section 16, the Assistant Commissioner shall be in charge of the registration and he maintains a register. Section 17 explains the procedure for registration of public trusts which reads thus:
"17-Registration of public trust:-(1) Within three months from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created whichever is later, the working trustee thereof shall apply to a Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for the registration of such public trust.
(2) The Assistant Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period prescribed by Sub-section (1) for the making of an application for registration by not more that two years. (3) Each such application shall be accompanied by such fee if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be utilised for such purpose, as may be prescribed. (4) The application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall contain the following particulars, namely:
(i) the origin (so far as knows), nature and object of the public trust and the designation by which the public trust is or shall be known;
(ii) the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate;
(iii) the name and addresses of the working trustee and the manager;
(28 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017]
(iv) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee;
(v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof;
(vi) the approximate value of the movable and immovable property;
(vii) the gross average annual income derived form movable and immovable property and from other source, if any, based on the actual gross annual income during the three years immediately proceeding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has elapsed since the creation of the trust, whichever period is shorter, and, in the case of a newly created public trust the estimated gross annual income from all such sources;
(viii) the amount of the average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the case of a newly created public trust, the estimated annual expenditure in connection with such public trust;
(ix) the address to which and communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent;
(x) such other particulars as may be prescribed; Provided that the rules made may provide that in the case of any or all public trusts it shall not be necessary to give the particulars of the trust property of such value and kind as may be specified therein.
(5) Every application made Under Sub-section (1) shall be signed and verified in accordance with the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act v if 1908) for signing and verifying plaints. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the instrument of trust (if such instrument has been executed and is in existence) and, where the trust property includes immovable property entered in a record of rights, a copy of the relevant entries relating to such property in such record of rights shall also be enclosed. (6) No Assistant Commissioner shall proceed with any application for the registration of a public trust in respect of which an application for registration has (29 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] been filed previously before any other Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first shall decide which Assistant Commissioner shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust.
(7) An appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first, given Under Sub-section (6) may be filed within sixty days before the Commissioner and, subject to the decision on such appeal, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner Under Sub-section (6) shall be final.
Thus, Section 17 mandates that within three months from the date of enforcement of this Section to a public trust, the working trustee can make an application to the Assistant Commissioner, in the prescribed form for registration. Sub-section (4) of Section 17 prescribes the particulars which shall contain in the application so made. Clause (v) of Sub- section (4) specifies that the application shall contain a list of movable and immovable trust property. Under Sub-section (7) an appeal shall lie before the Commissioner against the order of the Assistant Commissioner within a period of sixty days.
26. Section 18 describes the procedure of inquiry to be undertaken by the Assistant Commissioner for registration of the public trust. The said Section reads thus:
"18-Inquiry for Registration: (1) On receipt of an application Under Section 17 or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion, the Assistant Commissioner shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining:
(i) whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust:
(ii) whether any property is the property of such trust;
(iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject matter of the trust is situate within his jurisdiction;
(iv) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager of such trust;
(30 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017]
(v) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust;
(vi) the origin, nature and objects of such trust;
(vii) the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust: and
(viii) the correctness or otherwise of any other particulars furnished Under Sub-section (4) of Section 17.
2. The Assistant Commissioner shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made Under Sub-section (1) and invite all person having interest in the public trust inquiry to prefer within sixty days objection, if any, in respect of such trust."
27. On completion of the inquiry as contemplated Under Section 18, the Assistant Commissioner shall record his findings as provided Under Section 19 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act makes the provision for Appeal and reads thus:
"20.Appeal-Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or in any property found to be trust property aggrieved by a finding of the Assistant Commissioner Under Section 19 may, within two months from the date of its publication on the notice board of the Assistant Commissioner, file an appeal before the Commissioner to have such finding set aside or modified.
28. Section 21 of the Act prescribes that the Assistant Commissioner shall cause entries to be made in the register and Under Sub-section (2) the entries so made shall become final and conclusive. As per Section 22, if anyone is aggrieved by any entry, he may institute a civil suit. If there is any necessity for changes in the entries so recorded in the register, the working trustee can make an application Under Section 23(1) to the Assistant Commissioner. After holding an inquiry Under Section 23(2) the Assistant Commissioner can change the entries. Section 24 enables the Assistant Commissioner to undertake further inquiry, at any time after the entries are made Under Section 21 or 23. The said Section reads thus:
"24. Further inquiry by Assistant Commissioner:- If, at any time after the entries or amended entries are (31 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] made in the register Under Section 21 or Section 23, it appears to the Assistant Commissioner that any particulars relating to any public trust, which was not the subject matter of the inquiry Under Section 18 or Sub-section (2) of Section 23, as the case may be, has remained to be inquired into, the Assistant Commissioner may make further inquiry in the prescribed manner, record his findings and make or amend entries in the register in accordance with the decision arrived at, and the provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 shall, so far as may be, apply to the inquiry, the recording of findings and the making or amending of the entries in the register under this section.
29. It is the duty of the Auditor Under Section 34 of the Act, to prepare balance sheet of the public trust and to report irregularities, if any, and the Auditor has to forward a copy thereof to the Assistant Commissioner. It is further the duty of the Auditor to mention in the report in case of any irregularity, illegality or improper expenditure, failure or omission to recovery moneys or other property belonging to the public trust or of loss or waste of money or other property thereof.
30. Chapter 8 of the Act deals with Management of trust property. Section 38 therein provides for issuing directions by the Assistant Commissioner on an application filed by any person having interest in a public trust or otherwise that (a) the original object of the public trust has failed; (b) the trust property is not being properly managed or administered; or (c) the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust, he can direct inquiry after giving the working trustee an opportunity of being heard.
31. Section 39 provides that where the Assistant Commissioner rejects an application, fails or refuses to make an application to the Court, an appeal lies to the Commissioner. On receipt of an application made Under Sections 38 or 39, the Court shall consider and pass appropriate orders Under Section 40 of the Act. Section 41 envisages that if the present working trustee of a public trust, for any reasons mentioned therein, can make an application to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction seeking permission to (32 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] apply to the Court for appointment of a new working trustee and the Court Under Section 43 of the Act can make inquiry and pass an order.
32. Section 49 of the Act empowers the Assistant Commissioner to ask for explanation of the working trustee. If the Assistant Commissioner, on a perusal of the report of the auditor made Under Section 34, is of the opinion that material defects exist in administration of the public trust, he may require the working trustee to submit an explanation thereon within such period as he thinks fit.
33. Some special provisions are provided to public trusts under Chapter 10. Section 52 emphasizes how this chapter is applied to a public trust. It provides that this Chapter applies to every public trust which has a gross annual income of Rs. 1.00 lakh or more or is maintained or managed by the State Government. Sub-section (2) provides that it is the duty of the State Government to publish in the official gazette a list of the public trusts to which this chapter applies. The amended Sub-section (3) makes it clear that for the purpose of maintaining public order, the State Government may suspend by notification in the official gazette, the application of this Chapter to any public trust or the procedure for constitution of committee of management under this Chapter for such period as may be specified in such notification.
34. Section 53 as amended on 9th May, 2007 provides that if the State Government is satisfied with the public interest, it 'may', by notification in the official gazette, vest the management of a public trust in a committee of management to be constituted by it. Before the said amendment, the old Act contained the word 'shall' in place of 'may'. Thus, before the amendment, it was compulsory for the Government to constitute a committee which was diluted by introducing the provision as 'may'. Sub-section (5) of Section 53 states that the Committee of Management which is to be appointed by the Government, must include, the hereditary trustee in case of a public trust whereas in case of a Math, the head thereof as the Chairman of the Committee of Management.
35. Whenever the State Government decides to appoint a Committee of Management Under Section (33 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] 53, a notice shall be issued Under Section 54 to the hereditary trustee or the head of the Math, as the case may be, about the intention of the Government to constitute the committee and shall hear their objections, if any. Under Section 55 of the Act one can be disqualified from being considered as a member of the Committee of Management. According to Section 56, the term of office of the committee is five years.
36. Section 67 of the Act provides that the officers holding enquiries shall have the power of civil Court. The Section reads thus:
"67. Officers holding inquiries to have the powers of civil court.-In holding enquiries under the Act, the Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner shall have the same powers as are vested in civil Courts in respect of the following matters under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act v of 1908) trying a suit -
(a) Proof of facts by affidavits;
(b) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any persons and examining him on oath;
(c) Compelling the production of documents; and
(d) Issuing of Commissions.
From the above, it is evident that all the officers holding enquiry under the Act i.e. the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, have the power of a civil Court in respect of proof of facts by affidavits, for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and further compelling the production of documents and issue of Commissions.
37. A detailed examination of the Act reveals that it is a self-contained Act. We have thoroughly examined the Sections and each and every provision of law that is relevant for the purpose of the case on hand and find that the Act has provided appropriate mechanism
(a) to deal with the registration of a public trust;
(b) making of entries in the register, their correction and inquiry, if any;
(c) duties of auditor and inspection of balance sheet by any person interested in such public trust;
(34 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017]
(d) application by any person seeking directions from the Assistant Commissioner to appoint a new working trustee on the ground that the properties of the trust are not being properly managed or administered;
(e) power of the Assistant Commissioner to ask for explanation of the working trustee about the administration of the trust; and
(f) in case of mismanagement, power of the State Government to appoint a new committee of management etc."
39. From the principles deducible from the opinion in the case of Mahant Ramsaran (supra), it is evident that Section 21 of the Act of 1959, prescribes for entries to be caused to be made in the register by the Assistant Commissioner, while sub-section (2) contemplates to the effect that the entries so made shall be final and conclusive. Anyone aggrieved of any entry made under Section 22 may avail of remedy by institution of a civil suit. In the event of necessity for changes in the entries so recorded in the register, the working trustee can make an application Under Section 23(1) to the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner after holding an inquiry Under Section 23(2) can change the entries. Section 24 of the Act of 1959, enables the Assistant Commissioner to undertake further inquiry, at any time after the entries are made Under Section 21 or 23 of the Act of 1959.
40. From the factual matrix and materials available on record, the resignation of Shri Jayanti Lal Patel, tendered on 17 th March, 2012, was perfectly legal and valid and it needed no further approval. Hence, the meeting held on 2nd February, 2015 (Monday) by issuance of notices on 31st January, 2015 at 4.10 P.M. (Saturday) wherein Shri Jayanti Lal Patel, allegedly again tendered resignation and participated in the meeting held on 2nd Feburary, 2015; is absolutely an illegal process, and therefore, the actions taken by the petitioners in consequence (35 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] thereof shall be invalid and illegal. Accordingly, the changes incorporated in the order dated 14 th April, 2015, by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, as a consequence of meeting dated 2nd February, 2015, shall be void, so also the resolutions passed in meeting held on 3rd March, 2017, are also declared void and illegal. In the singular facts of the case at hand, the meeting held on 2nd January, 2017, resolutions made therein and amended Trust deed of even date, registered on 3rd January, 2017; cannot be faulted and are legal and valid.
41. In the case of Kalabharati Advisetising (supra), the Apex Court of the land dealt with the issue of condition precedent for a "review" while summarizing the legal position. Necessity of hearing of affected parties was also the issue considered. A glance of the factual matrix in the case of Kalabharati Advisetising (supra), would reflect that High Court permitted Municipal Corporation to withdraw earlier order and to pass fresh order in absence of any statutory provision for 'review' and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the advertiser and society in violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case at hand, Section 24 of the Act of 1959, makes a specific provision for further enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner at any time after the entries or amended entries are made in the register under Section 21 or 23, which may appear to the Assistant Commissioner that any particulars relating to public Trust which was not the subject matter of enquiry under Section 18 or Sub-section (2) or Section 23. Thus, the case referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is entirely in a different factual matrix. Moreover, in the case of Mahant Ram Saran Das (supra), the Supreme Court while explaining the scope, powers and jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner under the Act (36 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] of 1959, in no unequivocal terms observed that Section 24 enables the Assistant Commissioner to undertake further inquiry, at any time after the entries are made Under Section 21 or 23. Thus, the opinion referred to and relied upon in the case Kalabharati Advisetising (supra) has no application to the case at hand, which are clearly different and distinguishable on facts and law.
43. The Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, committed no error in issuing notice dated 28 th June, 2016, as a consequence of procedings initiated by respondent-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, under Section 24 of the Act of 1959, for the proceedings cannot be termed as "review" in the face of text of Section 24 of the Act of 1959, which specifically provides for further inquiry by Assistant Commissioner at any time after the entries or amended entries are made in the register under Section 21 or 23. Needless to observe that the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, vide order dated 4th August, 2016, are perfectly legal and valid, and therefore, calls for no interference and shall be complied with by the authorities concerned.
44. In the result, the four writ applications (No.3999/2017, 1648/2017, 6047/2017 and 4507/2017), instituted by the petitioners, are devoid of any substance and lack in merit, and therefore, deserve to be dismissed.
45. Ordered accordingly.
46. Interim order stands vacated. Stay applications stand closed.
47. Writ Application No.7897/2017, instituted by Indian Medical Trust through its Chairman-Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, is partly allowed, upholding the order dated 4th August, 2016. Petitioner-Dr. Balveer Singh (37 of 37) [ CW-3999/2017] Tomar, would be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings in the event of infringement of restraint order dated 4 th August, 2016, made by the Assistant Commissioner, Devstahan Department, Jaipur, in the proceedings in case No.01/2016, in accordance with law.
No costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. Pcg/pooja