Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3095 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. Ramdev Trust, Biranthiya Khurd

2005-11-22

KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA, S.N.JHA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2005 in civil writ petition No.2492/2001 allowing the writ petition of the respondents. 2. The respondent had filed the said writ petition inter alia for quashing the notifications dated 20.6.2001 by which, respectively, Shri Ramdev Trust, Biranthiya Khurd within Raipur Tehsil of District Pali was added to the list of public trusts in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and the Managing Committee was constituted in terms of Section 53(2) of the said Act. The validity of the notifications was challenged inter alia on the ground that they had been issued without giving any opportunity of hearing. 3. Before referring to the submissions of counsel for the parties it may be mentioned that the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') had been enacted to make better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State of Rajasthan. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 1, Chapters I, II, III and IV of the Act came into force at once. In terms of sub-section (4) of Section 1, Chapters V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X were to come into force on such dates and to apply therefrom "in relation to such class or classes of public trusts" as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify : sub-section (5) provides for a prior notice and inviting objections and consideration thereof before publication of any notification under sub-section (4). 4. As indicated above, by the former notification dated 20.6.2001, the trust in question was added to the list of public trusts. Section 52 occurs in Chapter X and by virtue of such addition, the provisions of Chapter X became applicable to the trust in question. Section 52 provides : "Application of Chapter : (1) The provisions contained in this chapter shall apply to every public trust- (a) which vests in the State Government, or (b) which is maintained at the expenses of the State Government, (c) which is managed directly by the State Government, or (d) which is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, or (e) of which the gross annual income is ten thousand rupees or more. (2) The State Government shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Chapter, publish in the official Gazette a list of the public trust to which this chapter applies and may by like notification and in like manner add to or vary such list." 5. From a bare reading, it would appear that while under sub-section (1), the provisions of Chapter X apply to every public trust falling within the ambit of any of the clauses set out therein and under sub-section (2), the State Government is supposed to publish a list of the public trust to which Chapter X applies as soon as may be after commencement of the Chapter; the State Government has the power by similar notification and in similar manner, to add to or vary such list. The first notification dated 20.6.2001 was issued in exercise of said power under sub-section (2) of Section 52. 6. The case of the respondent is that the inclusion of a trust in the list of public trusts in terms of Section 52(2) of the Act ipso facto makes the provisions of Chapter X applicable to such trust, and as in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 1, the notification under sub-section (4) cannot be issued without publishing the draft and inviting objections from the public at large, where the State Government intends to include another trust by adding its name to the list of public trusts, it is required to give an opportunity of hearing. According to the counsel, such inclusion results in chain of consequences which may be adverse to management of the trust and, therefore, even though Section 52(2) in terms does not expressly provide for opportunity of hearing, by reason of provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 1, the right of hearing should be read into as part of provision of Section 52(2). It is also the case of the respondent that in view of the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, the Government had no power to constitute any committee in place of the existing one without giving opportunity of hearing. 7. It is also the case of the respondent that in view of the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, the Government had no power to constitute any committee in place of the existing one without giving opportunity of hearing. 7. The case of the appellants who are members of the existing committee constituted by the second notification dated 20.6.2001 is that by reason of death and the resignation of the former trustees, respondent No.3 Guman Singh remained the sole surviving trustee rendering the Management of the trust unworkable and the Government in the circumstances thought it appropriate in public interest to constitute the managing committee for better management of the trust. 8. Mr. M.C. Bhoot appearing for the appellants submitted that the trust is a public trust and power was exercised in public interest, the court, therefore, may not interfere with the order on a technical ground such as violation of rules of natural justice. Counsel urged that the Court should decline to interfere on the ground of violation of natural justice unless the person concerned is able to establish that he is likely to suffer prejudice thereby. 9. Before making comments on the submission of the counsel for the appellants, it is relevant to state that the respondents have objected to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the appellants were mere nominees of the State Government. They were nominated as members of the Managing Committee headed by the Sub-Divisional Officer but neither the Sub-Divisional Officer nor the State Government has challenged the order of learned Single Judge quashing the impugned notifications, and in the circumstances the appeal at the instance of the appellants may be summarily dismissed. 10. Counsel for the respondents also referred to the past history of the case and submitted that before interfering with the order, after four years, opportunity had been given to hold the elections for the Managing Committee. Counsel submitted that in any case, in view of the un-controverted fact that before constituting the Managing Committee, no opportunity of hearing was given, the order was tit to be quashed for violation of statutory provisions and the order of learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error to warrant interference. 11. We have considered arguments of the counsel for the parties. 11. We have considered arguments of the counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the question as to whether before issuing notification and thereby adding any trust to the list of public trust in terms of Section 52(2) of the Act, opportunity of hearing should be given, may be debatable, but there cannot be any doubt that Managing Committee cannot be constituted without notice to the hereditary trustees of the public trust or head of the Math as the case may be, and considering their objections, if any, made by them, Section 54 in no certain terms provides for notice, it lays down : "54. Notice to hereditary trustee before constituting Committee : Whenever a committee of management is appointed under Section 53 for a public trust having a hereditary trustee or for a math, the State Government shall before such constitution give notice of its intention to constitute a committee of management therefor to the hereditary trustee of the public trust or to the head of the math, as the case may be, shall consider the objection, if any, made by such hereditary trustee or head and shall hear him." 12. The argument of the appellant rested on possible violation of rules of natural justice and consequences thereof but we are of the view that the question of violation of rules of natural justice would arise where statute does not provide for notice and prior hearing. Where the statute prescribes the manner doing a something, the thing must be done in that manner or not at all. Section 54 of the Act in no clear terms lays down the manner in which the Managing Committee of a public trust upon its inclusion in the list of public trust under Section 52(2) can be appointed. The manner having not been followed, we have no hesitation in coming to the same conclusion as learned Single Judge. The State undoubtedly is the repository of all public interest and is supposed to act in public interest but where its action is challenged on the ground of violation of statutory provisions or violation of rules of natural justice, it cannot ask the Court to assume that for its action was in public interest. In any view, the State does not seem to be aggrieved by the order. 13. In any view, the State does not seem to be aggrieved by the order. 13. In view of the admitted case that Managing Committee was constituted by the impugned notification without giving notice and opportunity of hearing under Section 54, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge appears to be irresistible and no interference is called for in this appeal. 14. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******