Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Ram vs State Devasthan And Ors ... on 22 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:24894]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9613/2011
Kalu Ram son of Shri Daulat Ram Ji, aged about 42 years,
resident of Mandphia, Sanwalia Ji District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Devsthan
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Udaipur.
3. The District Collector, Chittorgarh
4. Shri Sanwaliaji Mandir Board, Mandphia through its Chief
Executive Officer, Chittorgarh.
5. Shri Bheru lal son of Shri shri Lal Gurjar, Resident of
Sanwaliaji, presently the president of shri Sanwaliaji
Temple Board, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order 22/05/2025
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the nomination of respondent no.5 as the President of Shri Sanwalia ji Temple Board (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board). It is submitted that, as per the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the Shri Sanwalia Ji Temple Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1992'), respondent no.5 was not eligible to hold the post because he was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 by a (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:00:12 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:24894] (2 of 2) [CW-9613/2011] judgment dated 21st April 1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the term of the office of respondent no.5 was for a period of three years as provided under section 7 of the Act of 1992 and the same has already expired. Subsequently three more Boards have already been constituted and thus the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
3. Having considered the fact that the term of the period of appointment of respondent no.5 has already expired, nothing survive in the writ petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed. All pending applications are also dismissed.
4. However, liberty is granted to the writ petitioner that in case the respondent no.5 is again appointed as a President or a Member of the Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1992 then he will be at liberty to pursue his remedy afresh.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J 252-mohit/-
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:00:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)