Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Indian Medical Trust And Anr vs Dr Balveer Singh Tomar And Anr on 9 July, 2018
Bench: Kalpesh Satyendra Jhaveri, Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Writ Review No. 79/2018
1. Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Through Dr.
Anurag Tomar S/o Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar , R/o 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. Balveer Singh Tomar, By
Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Vice Chairman
Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Reg. Office-4,
Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar S/o Late Shri Hotam Singh
Tomar, By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
Chairman Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust
Reg. Office- 4 Govind Marg, Jaipur
2. Presiding Officer, Assistant Commissioner First Devasthan
Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji , Opp. Old
Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Writ Review No. 80/2018
1. Dr. Smt. Shobha Tomar W/o. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar, By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Anurag Tomar , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public 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 Tomar , R/o B-28-29 Govind Marg, Jaipur.
3. Assistant Commissioner First, Devasthan Department , Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji, Opp. Old Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(2 of 8) [WRW-79/2018]
D.B. Writ Review No. 81/2018
1. Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Through Dr. Anurag Tomar S/o Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar , R/o 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. Balveer Singh Tomar, By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Vice Chairman, Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Reg. Office 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar S/o Late Sh. Hotam Singh Tomar, By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Chairman, Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Reg. Office 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
2. Presiding Officer, Assistant Commissioner First, Devasthan Department , Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji, Opp. Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur.
3. The Sub-Registrar Stamps V, Registration And Stamps Department , Collectorate, Jaipur.
----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 82/2018
1. Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Through Dr. Anurag Tomar S/o Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar , R/o 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. Balveer Singh Tomar, By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Vice Chairman, Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Reg. Office 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Commissioner, Devasthan Department , Udaipur.
2. Presiding Officer, Assistant Commissioner First, Devasthan Department , Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji, Opp. Old Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur.
3. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar S/o Late Sh. Hotam Singh Tomar, (3 of 8) [WRW-79/2018] By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Chairman, Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Reg. Office 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents D.B. Writ Review No. 83/2018
1. Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Through Dr. Anurag Tomar S/o Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar , R/o 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. Balveer Singh Tomar, By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Vice Chairman, Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Reg. Office 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
3. Dr. Swati Tomar W/o Dr. Anurag Tomar, By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Trustee, Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Reg. Office 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Dr. Balveer Singh Tomar S/o Late Sh. Hotam Singh Tomar, By Caste Rajput , R/o 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Chairman, Indian Medical Trust Charitable Public Trust Reg. Office 4, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
2. Presiding Officer, Assistant Commissioner First, Devasthan Department, Mandir Shri Ram Chanderji,
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Mr. Aniroodh Singh Mr. R.P. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Achintya Kaushik HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 09/07/2018 (4 of 8) [WRW-79/2018]
1. Delay in filing the review petitions is condoned. The applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act stand allowed.
2. In all these review petitions common question of law and facts are involved since they have been filed seeking review of the order dt. 11.8.2017, these review petitions are decided by this common order.
3. By way of these review petitions, the applicants have prayed for the following relief:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this review petition may kindly be allowed and in the judgment of Hon'ble Division dt. 11.8.2017 it be further clarified that in addition to para no.40, para no.43 to 47 shall not be treated as conclusion for either side and further the observations made by the Hon'ble Single Bench to that extent from para no.43 to 47 be nullified and will not come in the way of either side as observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench qua para no.40 to that extent also observations made in para no.43 to 47 be nullified otherwise the present appellants/review petitions namely Dr. Smt. Shobha Tomar and Dr. Anurag Tomar shall be hauled in contempt and in spite of the fact that the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench qua para no.40 has been diluted and further order dt. 4.8.2016 already stood set aside by the competent authority vide order dt. 2nd September, 2016 in such circumstances, the review petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for."
4. The relevant observations of the learned Single Judge which is subject matter of review reads as under:-
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 (5 of 8) [WRW-79/2018] 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 (Saturday), for the meeting that was scheduled to be held on 2nd February (Monday); has substance.
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 16th 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" for the remedy is efficacious and statutory as provided under Section 24 of the Act of 1959.
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 (6 of 8) [WRW-79/2018] 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 17th 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 thereof shall be invalid and illegal. Accordingly, the changes incorporated in the order dated 14th 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.
43. The Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, committed no error in issuing notice dated 28th 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.
(7 of 8) [WRW-79/2018]
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.
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 SinghTomar, would be at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings in the event of infringement of restraint order dated 4th August, 2016, made by the Assistant Commissioner, Devstahan Department, Jaipur, in the proceedings in case No.01/2016, in accordance with law.
5. Thereafter, in the order of Division Bench dt. 11.8.2017 was observed as under:-
Since it was not subject matter of the writ petition, in that view of the matter, the observations made above will not be treated as conclusion for either side. The observations made by the learned Single Judge are nullified and will not come in the way of either side.
6. It is very clear from the above that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para no.40 were quashed and set aside. It is not to be taken as conclusion by either of the side as stated in para second which we have reproduced above.
7. However, it will be open for the present applicants to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan dt.
9.8.2017 by way of appropriate proceedings.
8. We make it clear that if the whole appeal is allowed only on the basis of para no.40 of the learned Single Judge, our order is (8 of 8) [WRW-79/2018] very clear and since order dt. 9.8.2017 has been passed prior to our order, we are not inclined to interfere but subsequently the appeal has to follow our Division Bench judgment dt. 11.8.2017 and appropriate order will be passed in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations, the review petitions stand disposed of.
10. All other applications (20840/2018, 20841/2018, 20838/2018, 20839/2018, 20837/2018) also stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J (K.S. JHAVERI),J Brijesh 2 to 6.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)