Honble ARORA, J. – The petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the validity of Secs. 38 & 39 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. He has, also, challenged the order dated 9.4.1985 (Annexure 2) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur Division, Udaipur. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, gave-up the challenge to Secs. 38 & 39 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act at this stage and restricted his challenged on various grounds but it is not necessary to consider and decide the other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition as well as during the course of arguments as the matter can be disposed of on a single point, i.e. that the order has been passed witholut giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (3). The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur Division, Udaipur, while passing the order Annexure 2 dated 9.4.85 did not give any notice to the petitioner. The issuance of the notice was dispensed with on the request of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3. (4). Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act provides that ``if the Assistant Commissioner on the application of any person having interest in a public trust or otherwise, is satisfied after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary that the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust, he may, after giving the wroking trustee an opportunity of being heard, direct such working trustee or any other trustee or person having interest in the trust to apply to the Court for directions within such time not exceeding thirty days as may be specified by the Assistant Commissioner. The requirement of Sec. 38 of the Act, therefore, is that before giving any direction the notice to the working trustee and an opportunity of hearing to him is a must, without giving any notice to the working turstee or opportunity of hearing to him. In this view of the matter, as the order dated 9.4.1985 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur Division, Udaipur has been passed in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 38 of the Act, the order Annexure 2, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. (5). In this view of the matter, as the order dated 9.4.1985 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur Division, Udaipur has been passed in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 38 of the Act, the order Annexure 2, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. (5). In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order Annexure 2 dated 9.4.1985 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur Division, Udaipur is quashed and set aside and the Assistant Commissioner is directed to dispose of the application u/ss. 37, 38 & 43 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1950 filed by Maharajas Mahendra Singh, within a period of three months from the date of submission of the certified copy of this judgment. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to raise all those points which he wanted to raise here, before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur Division, Udaipur at the time of disposal of the application. The petitioner will, also, be free to challenge the validity of the provisikons of Secs. 38 & 39 of the Act if the need so arises.