Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is life-time member and trustee of Shri Sachhiyay Mata Trust, Oriyan, Jodhpur, in which, he has challenged impugned order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No.125-A/2007, by which, application/appeal filed under Section 51(2) of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (in short, referred to hereinafter as “the Act of 1959”) was allowed and two orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur in Case No.6/2006 dated 28.09.2007 were set aside. 2. As per facts narrated in the writ petition Shri Sachhiyay Mata Trust, Osiyan, Jodhpur is a trust duly registered with the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur. The said Trust was constituted for management of religious and historic temple of Osiyan Mata and bye-laws were framed to regulate the management. Under the Constitution of the Trust, all the members of the Trust constitute General Assembly and the General Assembly is empowered to elect the members of the Board of Trustees. 3. At the time of filing the writ petition, there are 12 members of the Board of Trustees and all the trustees are bound to follow the Constitution of the Trust; but, according to the petitioner, they have not followed the same and, due to violating the Constitution, they are not managing the Trust property in the manner as prescribed under the Constitution. 4. The petitioner earlier preferred writ petition which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1386/2006, in which, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition so as to approach the authorities of Devesthan Department to raise his grievance before them. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.03.2006. 5. After dismissal of the above writ petition, the petitioner approached the Devasthan Department, Jodhpur by way of filing application under Section 38 of the Act of 1959. After issuing notice of the application, reply was filed to the application in which an objection was raised that litigation is pending before the civil Court, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner should not proceed further. After issuing notice of the application, reply was filed to the application in which an objection was raised that litigation is pending before the civil Court, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner should not proceed further. The Assistant Commissioner, after receiving reply, instituted proceedings under Section 51 of the Act of 1959 and, at the time of instituting the aforesaid proceedings, there were vacancies of the office-bearer members of the Board of Trustees and the working trustees did not give the information of the vacant seats within 20 days, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner instituted proceedings under Section 51 of the Act of 1959. The Ex-President wrote letter to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur on 12.06.2006 that no seat is vacant of the trustees. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner prepared inspection report dated 20.08.2007 and came to the conclusion that before passing order under Section 51, proceedings under Section 23(2)(3) is necessary to determine the vacancies of the Board of Trustees. Aforesaid proceedings were taken up and finally decided vide two separate orders dated 28.09.2009. The Assistant Commissioner determined vacant seats as per Section 23 of the Act of 1959 and under Section 51 framed programme for holding elections. 6. As per facts, during the pendency of the proceedings, respondents No.2 and 3 opened membership of the General Assembly. Upon receiving the information that 900 persons applied for membership and lifetime membership fee receipt has been issued in their favour and, from it, sum of Rs.9,00,000/- has been deposited in the account of the Trust, the Assistant Commissioner permitted all those members to participate in the election who submitted their applications to the Trust. 7. Respondents No.2 and 3 challenged both orders dated 28.09.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur under Section 23(2)(3) as well as order passed under Section 51 of the Act of 1959 by way of filing application/appeal under Section 51(2) of the Act before the District Judge, Jodhpur. 8. The District Judge, Jodhpur while considering the entire facts of the case passed order impugned dated 25.3.2009 whereby the learned District Judge set aside both the orders dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Assistant Com-missioner, Devesthan Department, Jodhpur. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of judgment dated 25.3.2009 and, further, notice issued for election on 20.4.2009 by the respondent for conducting the elections. 9. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of judgment dated 25.3.2009 and, further, notice issued for election on 20.4.2009 by the respondent for conducting the elections. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was no error in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur because the Assistant Commissioner after examining entire facts and relevant law enumerated under Section 51 and Section 23(2)(3) of the Act of 1959 gave finding that change in the register of working trustees is equivalent to finding under Section 19 of the Act of 1959 and is appealable under Section 20 of the Act; but, this aspect of the matter is not considered by the District Judge properly while deciding application/appeal filed by the respondents under Section 51(2) of the Act of 1959. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 is perfectly in accordance with law because there is jurisdiction left with the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department to hold an inquiry where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the registers and for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any particulars of the register the Assistant Commissioner can hold an inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 23. 10. Further, it is argued that after holding such inquiry or otherwise if the assistant Commissioner is satisfied that a change has occurred or is necessary in any of the entries recorded in the register with regard to particular public trust, he can record a finding with reasons thereof and provisions of Section 29 shall apply to such finding as they apply to finding under Section 19, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner suo motu exercised its power and passed the order under Section 51(1) of the Act of 1959; but, the learned District Judge, Jodhpur illegally held that in the garb of Section 23 of the Act of 1959 the Assistant Commissioner cannot interfere upon question of membership of the Trust and elections of the Trust. It is, therefore, prayed that order passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur may be quashed. 11. It is, therefore, prayed that order passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur may be quashed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently invited attention of this Court towards sub-section (4) of Section 23 and submits that Assistant Commissioner can cause entries in the register to be amended in accordance with finding recorded under sub-section (3) or if any appeal has been filed and provisions of Sections 21 and 22 shall apply to such amended entries as they apply to the original entries; but, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the District Judge in proper manner, therefore, the impugned deserves to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application/ appeal the respondents No.2 and 3 challenged two orders passed on 28.09.2007 under different sections by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur but the learned District Judge observed in the order that both the orders have been passed on the same day and in one proceedings, therefore, virtually although they are two different orders but, in fact, order is one, in two parts but this finding is also erroneous because two different orders have been passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department under Section 23(2) and (3) and under Section 51(1) of the Act of 1959, therefore, it cannot be said that both orders constitute single order in two parts but for the same controversy. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that respondent Trust is illegally holding election on the basis of so called decision taken by them for the purpose of granting membership, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department has rightly passed an order for the purpose of membership after holding proper inquiry under Section 23(2) and (3). In this view of the matter, the order impugned which is contrary to law passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur may be set aside and two order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur may be restored. 14. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. In this view of the matter, the order impugned which is contrary to law passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur may be set aside and two order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur may be restored. 14. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. M.C. Bhoot vehemently argued that the order impugned has been passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur in the proceedings initiated by the answering respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 51(2) of the Act of 1959 because the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur has acted contrary to law and exceeded its jurisdiction to interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the respondent Trust, therefore, the District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that in the garb of Section 23(2) & (3) of the act of 1959 no direction can be given by the Assistant Commissioner for conducting election as per his finding. 15. While inviting attention towards bye-laws of the respondent Trust, learned Senior Advocate submits that according to provision for granting membership the power left with the Trust in its general meeting and only Board of Trustees has power to grant membership after taking decision in general body but the Assistant Commissioner in the garb of Section 23(2)(3) usurped the power which is vested in the Trust for granting membership, therefore, the District Judge has rightly exercised its powers under Section 51(2) and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur dated 28.09.2007. It is submitted that the learned District Judge considered all aspects of the matter while passing the order impugned, therefore, the order passed by the District Judge upn application/appeal is perfectly justified and it does not require any interference. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. 17. Section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 reads as under : “23. Changes.-(1) Where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register, the working trustee shall, within ninety days from the date of the occurrence of such change, or, where any change is desired in such entries in the interest of the administration of such public trust, the working trustee may, report in the prescribed form and manner such change or proposed change to the Assistant Commissioner. (2) For the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the particulars recorded in the register, the Assistant Commissioner may hold an inquiry. (3) If, after holding such inquiry as he may consider necessary under sub-section (2) either on receipt of a report under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that a change has occurred or is necessary in any of the entries recorded in the register in regard to the particular public trust, he shall record a finding with the reasons therefor and the provisions of Section 29 shall apply to such finding as they apply to a finding under Section 19. (4) The Assistant Commissioner shall cause the entries in the register to be amended in accordance with the finding recorded under sub-section (3) or, if an appeal has been filed therefrom, in accordance with the decision of the Commissioner on such appeal and the provisions of Section 21 and 22 shall apply to such amended entries as they apply to the original entries.” Section 51 of the Act of 1959 is as follows : “51. Vacancy in the Board of Trustees.-(1) Where a public trusdt is under the management of a board of trustees, the working trustee shall, when a vacancy occurs in the board, inform the Assistant Commissioner within twenty days of such vacancy and the time within and the manner in which he proposes to fill the same. (2) If the working trustee fails to give any such information or to fill the vacancy within the time specified by him, the Commissioner may, by order passed in writing fill the vacancy, and any person having interest in the public trust who may be aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner may apply to the court for setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner within thirty days from the date of such order.” 18. Likewise, powers left with the Trust in the Constitution of the Trust is as under : ^^¼5½ lk/kkj.k lnL; % tks VªLV dks 101½ izfr o"kZ lnL;rk 'kqYd nsxk] mudks lk/kkj.k lnL; cuk;k tk;sxkA ¼6½ vLFkk;h lnL; % VªLV fgrkFkZ VªLV e.My fdlh Hkh lTtu ;k lUukjh dks fu%'kqYd lk/kkj.k lnL; cuk ldrk gSA ftudh vof/k vkxkeh lk/kkj.k lHkk ds okf"kZd vf/kos'ku rd gksxhA lnL; cuus ds fy, ,d izkFkZuk i= VªLV ds uke fy[kdj nsuk gksxk rFkk fu/kkZfjr jde VªLV ds dk;kZy; esa tek djkuh gksxhA jde tek gksus ,oa izkFkZuk i= vkus ij VªLV e.My mlds izkFkZuk i= ij fopkj dj lnL; cukus vFkok u cukus ij fu.kZ; ysxkA lnL;ksa dks VªLV ds orZeku ,oa Hkfo"; esa cuus okys fu;e ekU; gksaxsA** 19. I have perused both the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department dated 28.09.2007, so also, judgment of the District Judge dated 25.03.2009 which is impugned in this writ petition. 20. First of all, it is required to be observed that there is no strength in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Judge, Jodhpur has wrongly entertained the application/appeal filed under Section 51(2) of the Act of 1959 against two orders passed on 28.09.2007 because before passing order under Section 51(1) by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan he made inquiry under Section 23(2)& (3) of the Act of 1959. Bare perusal of Section 23, quoted above, reveals that it is not related with preparation of voter-list of the trust or it has any relevance with regard to election of the trust. The District Judge while considering the said provision categorically held that the question of membership is to be decided as per the Constitution of the Trust; and, as per the Constitution of the Trust, the power is left with the Trust to grant membership to the desirous persons. 21. In my opinion, the said finding given by the District Judge is perfectly in consonance with law, therefore, the District Judge has rightly quashed both the orders dated 28.09.2007 passed in Case No.6/06 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan Department, Jodhpur upon application filed under Section 51(2) of the Act of 1959 by the respondents. 22. 21. In my opinion, the said finding given by the District Judge is perfectly in consonance with law, therefore, the District Judge has rightly quashed both the orders dated 28.09.2007 passed in Case No.6/06 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan Department, Jodhpur upon application filed under Section 51(2) of the Act of 1959 by the respondents. 22. It is also worthwhile to observe that the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan has not only exceeded its jurisdiction but tried to impose its own decision upon election of the trustees of the trust and granted membership to large number of persons. In my opinion, the decision for granting membership is exclusive domain of the Trust as per the Constitution of the Trust and there is no allegation in both the orders that any contravention is made by the Trust while granting membership to the applicants. 23. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department has failed to appreciate the relevant provisions of law in right perspective. Admittedly, for the vacant seats of the trustees, arose due to expiry of respective term of office, the management is suffering a loss because due to instant litigation, so also, other civil cases, the day to day functioning of the respondent Trust is suffering. Therefore, it is obvious that the District Judge, Jodhpur has rightly adjudicated the matter and quashed the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur in Case No.6/06 dated 28.09.2007 because the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department has not only exceeded its jurisdiction but tried to impose his own decision which is totally contrary to law. 24. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. It is expected from the respondent Trust that elections of the Trust will be conducted fairly as per Constitution of the Trust within a period of three months.