Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 848 (RAJ)

Om Shri Narayan Ashram Trust v. Vimal Chand Jain

2022-03-10

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, SAMEER JAIN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. This appeal arises out of order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant assailing order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Second), Devasthan Department allowing the prayer for cross-examination, has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the enquiry contemplated under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Assistant Commissioner is summary in nature and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Assistant Commissioner to allow cross-examination. 4. Relying upon order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Jyoti Sharma & Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan (II), Jaipur & Others. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5606/2017), it has been argued that the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision do no allow the enquiry authority to allow cross-examination of the person who has submitted affidavit during enquiry. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the grounds on which order of learned Single Judge has been challenged, to say the least, is as frivolous as it could be. No doubt, the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act in the matter of enquiry for registration are summary in nature. However, where the officer holding enquiry allows the other party to cross-examine any person who has filed affidavit, it is only to elucidate the matter in issue before the authority and to verify the facts stated in the affidavit. It cannot be said that this has resulted in violation of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act is silent as to whether the cross- examination can be permitted. The enquiry, which is being made by the enquiry authority under Section 18 is a statutory provision. Allowing the party to cross-examine, in the opinion of this Court, would not result in any prejudice to the appellant. Merely because there is no provision to cross-examine, it cannot be said that the authority, which is holding a statutory enquiry, is denuded of the power to evolve its own course of enquiry consistent with the principle of fair play and justice. Merely because there is no provision to cross-examine, it cannot be said that the authority, which is holding a statutory enquiry, is denuded of the power to evolve its own course of enquiry consistent with the principle of fair play and justice. In a given case, if the authority has allowed the cross-examination of a person, who has filed affidavit, it cannot be said to be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and fairness. The order does not result in any prejudice to the appellant. 6. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.