Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1652 (RAJ)

Shishram Bhagat v. State of Rajasthan

2011-08-09

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is son of one of the trustees of Respondent No. 3-Trust, namely Baba Mohan Ram Kali Kholi Wala Trust, which was registered as a Rajasthan Public Trust with Devasthan Department, Bharatpur. As per Clause 13 of the Trust Deed (Annexure-2), the period of elected Managing Committee is three years, the earlier election of the Managing Committee took place in 2006 and Respondent No. 4, Amar Singh took charge of Chairman on 23.05.2006. Thereafter, no election of the Trust took place. However, the petitioner came to know that the Respondent No. 4, Amar Singh informed the Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur, vide Annexure-6 to the effect that election of Managing Committee has taken place on 15.06.2009 and the same may be confirmed. The petitioner was not aware about said election and even if the said election has taken place, the same is not in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioner moved an application before Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as a party on 20.06.2011 and also moved another application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on 11.07.2011, but Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur is not deciding the applications of the petitioner. The petitioner has also served a notice for demand of Justice (Annexure-9) on 21.07.2011 upon the respondents, but neither the applications filed by the petitioners have been decided by Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur nor Respondent No. 4 is being restrained from acting as Chairman of the Trust. He, therefore, contended that Respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur be directed to decide the applications filed by the petitioners at the earliest. 3. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the same in the light of documents placed on record alongwith writ petition. 4. It appears that Respondent No. 4, Amar Singh informed Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur about election of Managing Committee vide Annexure-6. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. and another application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before Respondent No. 2. As and when any application is filed before Respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur, it becomes its duty to decide the same within a reasonable period, as Respondent No. 2 is a statutory authority under the Act. As and when any application is filed before Respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner-II, Devasthan Department, Jaipur, it becomes its duty to decide the same within a reasonable period, as Respondent No. 2 is a statutory authority under the Act. In these circumstances, I find substance in submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the applications filed by the petitioner should be decided by Respondent No. 2 at the earliest, within a reasonable period. 5. Consequently, writ petition is disposed off with a direction to Respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur-II, Opposite Hawamahal, Near Badi Chopad, Jaipur to decide the applications filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order for compliance to Respondent No. 2. It will be open for the petitioner to place on record a copy of this order before Respondent No. 2.Petition allowed. *******