Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2127 (RAJ)

Ajay Jain, S/o. Shri Manakraj Munoth v. Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhaag Rajasthan, Udaipur

2023-11-22

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2023
ORDER : 1. Since both these writ petitions have been filed against the separate orders dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, in Appeal No. 19/2018, titled as Raj Welfare Trust, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Trustee Smt. Manju Kothari Vs. Assistant Commissioner (II), Devsthan Department, Jaipur, Shri Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain and in Appeal No. 20/2018 titled as Raj Welfare Trust, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Working Trustee Shri Sunil Dhadda and others Vs Assistant Commissioner (II), Devsthan Department, Jaipur & Ors., which originated from the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner(II), Devsthan Department, Jaipur, in Case No.01/2018, therefore, both these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. The facts in brief of the matter are that a trust was created on 29.03.1973 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’) in the name and style of “Raj Welfare Trust” which was got registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur City, on 30.03.1973 and was given registration No.376/74. 3. After formation of the Trust on various occasions, Form No.8 was submitted to the Devsthan Department under the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules of 1962’) in regard to the occurred changes and proposed changes of entries in the Trust. 4. Though in the original trust deed the ‘Settlor’ includes Shri Manak Raj, his heirs, executors and administrators, however, a Form No.8 was submitted on 05.06.2010 for not appointing the legal heirs of Shri Manak Raj as the Trustees of the Trust. The said Form No.8 was said to be disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2013 and on an appeal filed against that order, the same was allowed vide order dated 17.09.2015 and the order dated 15.01.2013 was quashed and set aside. 5. On 05.03.2013 Shri Manak Raj Muhnoth was expired. On 24.04.2013 a Form No.8 was submitted by Shri Ajay Jain in view of the Resolution dated 10.12.2012 in regard to the changes in the Trust for appointment of Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as the Trustees. 5. On 05.03.2013 Shri Manak Raj Muhnoth was expired. On 24.04.2013 a Form No.8 was submitted by Shri Ajay Jain in view of the Resolution dated 10.12.2012 in regard to the changes in the Trust for appointment of Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as the Trustees. On submission of the Form No.8 dated 24.04.2013, the same was registered as File No.34/2013 and after inquiry, the Assistant Commissioner (II), Devsthan Department, Jaipur, passed an order dated 17.09.2015 confirming the changes occurred in the Trust as intimated vide Form No.8 dated 24.04.2013 and ordered to record the entry in regard to Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as the Members of the Trust. 6. Against the order dated 17.09.2015, an appeal No.38/2015 was filed before the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, jointly in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through Sunil Dhadda-working Trustee as well as Shri Sudhir Dhadda. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 26.12.2017 setting aside the order dated 17.09.2015 and remanded the matter for fresh decision after hearing the parties on an application dated 25.05.2015 filed by Ajay Jain, the reply dated 08.06.2015 as well as the application dated 20.08.2015 filed by the appellants therein and further to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to the appellants. 7. After remand of the matter by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, the Assistant Commissioner (II), Devsthan Department, proceeded with hearing of the matter as directed by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jaipur, while remanding the matter to him and passed the order dated 09.04.2018 holding that the legal heirs of Shri Manak Raj Muhnoth shall automatically become the members of the Trust in view of the definition of ‘Settlor’ given in para 1 of the trust deed and for other members Clause 9 of the trust deed will be applicable and also accepted the Form No.8 dated 24.04.2013 and ordered to make an entry in the record of the Devsthan Department in regard to Ajay Jain as the working Trustee and Abhi Jain as the trustee of the Trust. 8. In the meantime, on 15.01.2013, the Assistant Commissioner (II), Devsthan Department, passed an order on the Form No.8 and accepted the appointment of Sudhir Dhadda as an executor and Sunil Dhadda as an Administrator of the Trust. 8. In the meantime, on 15.01.2013, the Assistant Commissioner (II), Devsthan Department, passed an order on the Form No.8 and accepted the appointment of Sudhir Dhadda as an executor and Sunil Dhadda as an Administrator of the Trust. On an appeal against the order dated 15.01.2013, the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, vide order dated 26.12.2017 set aside the order dated 15.01.2013, meaning-thereby the appointment of Sudhir Dhadda as an Executor and Sunil Dhadda as an Administrator was quashed. Against the order dated 26.12.2017 setting aside the order dated 15.01.2013, Sudhir Dhadda and Sunil Dhadda preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1416/2018 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2018 affirming the order dated 26.12.2017. 9. The order dated 09.04.2018 was challenged before the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, by filing an appeal No.19/2018 in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through its Trustee Manju Kothari and another appeal No.20/2018 was filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through Sunil Dhadda, Working Trustee. Appeal No.19/2018 filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through Manju Kothari stating to be the trustee, was allowed vide order dated 09.07.2019 setting aside the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (II), Devsthan Department, Jaipur in Case No. 1/2018 (34/2013) and ordered to delete the name of petitioners Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain from the records as working trustee and the trustee respectively and also directed the Assistant Commissioner (II), Devsthan Department to decide the Form No.8 submitted by Late Shri Manak Raj Muhnoth during his lifetime. 10. The Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, also decided the appeal No.20/2018 filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through Sunil Dhadda, as working Trustee, vide its order dated 08.07.2019 observing that since the order dated 09.04.2018 has been quashed and set aside vide a detailed order dated 09.07.2019, no separate order is required and the order dated 09.07.2019 passed in Appeal No.19/2019 was also directed to be placed on record in this matter. 11. The petitioners being aggrieved by the separate orders dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, in Appeals No.19/2018 and 20/2018, have preferred these writ petitions. 12. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. 11. The petitioners being aggrieved by the separate orders dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, in Appeals No.19/2018 and 20/2018, have preferred these writ petitions. 12. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the appeals which have been decided by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust on behalf of Smt. Manju Kothari as a trustee and another through Sunil Dhadda as a working trustee, were not maintainable as the same were decided contrary to the provisions of Section 20 read with Sections 29, 2(17) and 2(18) of the Act of 1959. It was also submitted that the appellants in appeal No.20/2018, the order of which is under challenge in SBCW P.No. 14860/2019, have already lost upto the High Court and the appeal No.19/2018, the order of which is under challenge in SBCW P. NO. 14871/2019 has been accepted observing that Smt. Manju Kothari is having interest in the trust on the basis of Form No.8 dated 03.10.2009 filed by the ‘Settlor’ trustee ignoring the subsequent Form No.8 dated 06.11.2009 whereby she was removed from being member of the trust. He further submitted that Smt. Manju Kothari submitted the alleged Form No.8 dated 01.02.2013 in the year 2018, said to be signed by Settlor trustee which refers to no resolution of the trust, and therefore, same is of no consequence. Senior Counsel further submitted that the Commissioner, Devsthan Department while considering the appeal has wrongly framed a question ‘as to whether the Form No.8 dated 24.04.2013 submitted by Ajay Jain for being an heir appointing himself and his son as trustees, though the form was submitted not on the basis of succession but on the basis of appointment. He also referred to section 23 which mandates the submission of the report with regard to occurrence of changes and release upon the Assistant Commissioner for direction to hold appropriate inquiry for satisfaction that a change has occurred, and therefore, section 23 of the Act of 1959 does not mandate any requirement of prior consent of the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department for decisions of the trust and he does not appoint or remove the trustees. It is the trust which informs the department for the changes occurred in the trust and the Assistant Commissioner can record the findings for satisfaction that changes have occurred. He also submitted that if the Assistant Commissioner does not dispose of the report of the occurrence, the decision shall have to be presumed to be correct and only in case of rejection of Form No.8 the decision of the trust could be made questionable. He also submitted that the provisions of Section 23 are procedural and not part of substantive law. It was further argued that the Commissioner, Devsthan Department had no jurisdiction to doubt or reject the resolution duly passed on the basis of the possible doubts arising according to him for reasons wholly irrelevant and further that the Commissioner had no authority to ignore the Form No.8 submitted by the Settlor trustee during his lifetime while recording the finding with regard to the subsequent events. It was also submitted that the correctness of the forms with regard to the occurrence of events shall have to be decided in chronological order or else earlier forms submitted have to be treated as correct. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that as a consequence of ignoring the pending forms submitted by the Settlor trustee and in absence of their decision and deciding subsequent forms has resulted in situation where a person i.e. Smt. Manju Kothari who has been removed by the Settlor trustee for the alleged fraud and who was made the defendant in the suit filed for cancellation of the sale deed of the trust property, has been accepted as the sole trustee who in violation of the stay order of this Court frittered away the trust property by withdrawal and compromise of the suits filed against the trust getting herself inducted as trustee and getting the real trustees excluded from the trust. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department has not passed any order on the Form No.8 submitted on 06.11.2009 whereby Smt. Manju Kothari was removed as member of the trust and the Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration this material fact. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department has not passed any order on the Form No.8 submitted on 06.11.2009 whereby Smt. Manju Kothari was removed as member of the trust and the Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration this material fact. He further submitted that the findings of the Appellate Authority that the Assistant Commissioner has wrongly accepted the Form No.8 dated 24.04.2013 ignoring the Form No.8 dated 05.06.2010 and the letter dated 28.04.2010, are perverse and contrary to the facts on record. 13. Shri A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 (in SBCW P. No. 14871/2019) submitted that the present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which deals with the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and therefore, re-appreciation of the evidence cannot be made in the writ jurisdiction. It was also submitted that as per Section 23 of the Act of 1959, only the working trustee can make changes in the entries of the trust whereas in the present case the petitioner Ajay Jain who is not a working trustee, signed and submitted the Form No.8. It was also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Will dated 14.12.2012 with the averments that Ajay Jain is a working trustee along-with Baljraj Munoth, Manju Surana and Abhi Jain as trustee of Raj Welfare Trust, was sent for FSL by the Assistant Commissioner and the report is still awaited because the petitioners have not submitted the original Will. It was also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner on 17.09.2015 accepted the Form No.8 of the petitioner and the said order was challenged by way of filing an appeal which was set aside vide order dated 26.12.2017 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the issue again after original documents are produced by the petitioner. He also stated that the order dated 26.12.2017 was challenged before the High Court in SBCW P. No.3728/2018 and the petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2018 upholding the order of the Commissioner, Devsthan Department. He also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner was bound to decide those issues which were remanded and not to give new findings but the Assistant Commissioner has given the new finding while passing the order dated 09.04.2018. He also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner was bound to decide those issues which were remanded and not to give new findings but the Assistant Commissioner has given the new finding while passing the order dated 09.04.2018. He also argued that Manak Raj Munoth never withdrew the declaration dated 28.4.2010 and the Form No.8 dated 05.06.2010 by which his legal heirs cannot be appointed as trustees. He also submitted that the meeting dated 10.12.2012 by which Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain were made trustees is doubtful and suspicious because Manak Raj Munoth never presented the Form No.8 itself for making the petitioners as members of the trust. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents that until the inquiry is made by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1959, the changes informed by filing the Form No.8 cannot be put into effect. 14. Mr. R.B. Mathur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Varnit Jain appearing for the one of the respondents submitted that Rule 22 of the Rules of 1962 provides for manner in which working trustee is to report the changes in the trust where it has been provided that the working trustee within the prescribed period shall report the occurred changes or proposed changes of entries to the Assistant Commissioner in Form No.8. He also referred the findings of the Appellate Authority in regard to the Form No.8 for induction of Smt. Manju Kothari as the Member of the trust. He also referred that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1959 which provides for ‘who can file appeal against the findings of the Assistant Commissioner given under section 19’. He also submitted that the issue of inducting the legal heirs of deceased Settlor trustee Manak Raj Munoth has already been settled vide order dated 26.12.2017. 15. Mr. R.K. Daga, counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4 in SBCW P. No.14860/2019 submitted that the provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of the Act of 1959 should be invoked in regard to the dispute between the parties. 16. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Addl. Government Counsel appearing for the Devsthan Department submitted that he adopts the arguments submitted by Senior Advocate Shri A.K. Sharma appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3. 16. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Addl. Government Counsel appearing for the Devsthan Department submitted that he adopts the arguments submitted by Senior Advocate Shri A.K. Sharma appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3. He also submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority is just and proper and the same has been passed considering all the material available on the record strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. The Government Counsel during the course of arguments also placed on record the details and the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department on Forms No.8 submitted for changes in the trust. The said details and orders are taken on record and are made part of the pleadings. He also submitted that the issue whether the heirs of the Settlor trustee Manak Raj Munoth can be inducted as members of the trust or not, has already been decided vide order dated 15.01.2013. 17. In the rejoinder, counsel appearing for the petitioners referred the proceedings of the meeting of the trust held on 10.12.2012 wherein as per the proposal No.3 it was decided to induct Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as the members of the trust and to be informed to the department after taking consent of both. He also referred the proceedings of the meeting of the trust held on 30.01.2013 wherein the petitioners were present in the meeting as the members of the trust and the said meeting was presided over by Manak Raj Munoth. In another meeting held on 07.04.2013 wherein the petitioners were also present and it was resolved that in the meeting held on 10.12.2012 Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain were inducted as the trustees of the trust and the information in regard to the said changes could not be intimated to the department because of illness of the Settlor trustee now it is being decided that Ajay Jain is made as a working trustee as the original Settlor Manaj Raj Munoth has expired and further Ajay Jain is made as a trust member and further Ajan Jain was authorized to submit the Form No.8 about the changes. 18. 18. On consideration of the submissions of both sides, one of the issue emerges is whether the appeal No.19/2018 filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through its trustee Smt. Manju Kothari and another Appeal No.20/2018 filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through its working trustee Sunil Dhadda joined with Sudhir Dhadda and Sunil Dhadda as the members of the trust, are not maintainable or not?. 19. Section 20 of the Act of 1959 provides for an appeal against the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner under section 19. Section 19 of the Act of 1959 reads as under:- “19. Finding of Assistant Commissioner: On completion of the inquiry provided for under section 18, the Assistant Commissioner shall record his findings with the reasons therefore as to the matters mentioned in the said section.” 20. The Commissioner, Devsthan Department entertained the appeal No.19/2018 filed on behalf of the trust through Smt. Manju Kothari treating her as a person having interest in the trust. As per the facts on record, initially vide Form No.8 Smt. Manju Kothari was made member of the trust and by subsequent Form No.8 dated 06.11.2009 she was removed from the member of the trust. Another Form No.8 dated 01.02.2013 was submitted on 04.04.2018 for inducting Smt. Manju Kothari as a trust member and the said form was considered and the Assistant Commissioner recorded its finding on 12.09.2019 inducting Smt. Manju Kothari as the member of the trust. In view of the Form No.8 submitted in regard to the changes occurred in the trust and the submissions of the counsel appearing for the respondents that until and unless findings are recorded on Form No.8 it does not come into effect and operation, it can be very well said that on the date of filing of the appeal Smt. Manju Kothari was not the member of the trust. The Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department has entertained the appeal filed by Smt. Manju Kothari being a person interested in the trust but has failed to consider the material fact that the appeal was filed not in the name of Smt. Manju Kothari but was filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust. An appeal can be filed by a person interested in the trust in his or her personal capacity. An appeal can be filed by a person interested in the trust in his or her personal capacity. A person having interest in the trust and who is not a member of the trust cannot file an appeal in the name of the trust. Any kind of litigation in the name of the trust or against a trust can be contested by a person having been working as a trustee or authorized by the trust by a resolution of the trust. In the present case, the appeal No.19/2018 has been filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust by Smt. Manju Kothari stating herself to be the member of the trust, whereas on the date of filing of the appeal she was not the member of the trust. Even a person having interest in the trust cannot file any litigation including an appeal in the name of a trust as neither the law provides nor there was any authorization by the trust. Hence, the appeal filed in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through Smt. Manju Kothari was not maintainable as she was not having any locus to file such appeal. 21. The appeal filed by Smt. Manju Kothari as a trustee in the name of Raj Welfare Society was entertained by the Appellate Authority treating her to be a person interested in the trust. The Form No.8 dated 3.10.2009/9.10.2009 was submitted by Late Shri Manak Raj Munoth during his lifetime. The person having interest has been defined in sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act of 1959. Section 2(9) of the Act of 1959 reads as under:- “9. "Person having interest" or any expression signifying a person having interest in a public trust includes - (a) in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to partaking or is in the habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts thereof. (b) in the case of math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs, (c) in the case of society registered or deemed to be registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958(Rajasthan Act 28 of 1958) or under any other analogous law in force in any part of the State, any member of such society, and (d) in the case of any, other public trust, any beneficiary.” 22. The Appellate Authority has treated Smt. Manju Kothari as a person having interest in the trust on the basis of Form No.8 dated 3.10.2009/9.10.2009, whereas it has ignored the Form No.8 dated 6.11.2009 submitted during the lifetime of Late Shri Manak Raj Munoth whereby Smt. Manju Kothari was removed from being member of the trust in view of certain frauds committed by her and Smt. Manju Surana was made member of the trust in place of Smt. Manju Kothari. The fact of Form No.8 dated 6.11.2009 removing Smt. Manju Kothari being the member of the trust has been brought on record by the counsel appearing for the respondent authorities. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the finding of the Appellate Authority that Smt. Manju Kothari is a person interested in the trust is contrary to the facts and law. 23. As far as Appeal No.20/2018 is concerned, the same has been filed jointly in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through working trustee Sunil Dhadda joined with Sunil Dhadda as working trustee and Sudhir Dhadda as member of the trust. By submitting Form No.8 dated 05.06.2010 Sunil Dhadda was appointed as an Administrator of the trust and vide Form No.8 dated 19.07.2010 Sudhir Dhadda was appointed as an Executor. Both the forms were considered by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department by registering a case No.10/2011 and vide its order dated 15.01.2013 the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department recorded its finding accepting the Form No.8 dated 05.06.2010 and 19.07.2010 and rejected the subsequent forms withdrawing the aforesaid forms. Against the order dated 15.01.2013 two appeals were preferred; one appeal No.15/2015 was filed by Balraj Munoth and Manju Surana and another Appeal No.20/2015 was filed by the present petitioner Ajay Jain. Against the order dated 15.01.2013 two appeals were preferred; one appeal No.15/2015 was filed by Balraj Munoth and Manju Surana and another Appeal No.20/2015 was filed by the present petitioner Ajay Jain. Both the appeals were decided by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, vide its judgment dated 26.12.2017 and allowed the appeals and set aside the order dated 15.01.2013 holding that the order dated 15.01.2013 is beyond the jurisdiction and illegal and further ordered that if in compliance of the order dated 15.1.2013 the name of Sunil Dhadda and Sudhir Dhadda have been recorded as Administrators/Executors/Trustees, the Form No.4 shall be deleted with immediate effect. Against the order dated 26.12.2017 Sudhir Dhadda and Sunil Dhadda preferred SBCW P. No.1416/2018 before the High Court which was dismissed vide a detailed judgment dated 17.05.2018. The aforesaid facts clearly speak that on the date of filing of the appeal No.20/2018, neither Sunil Dhadda was the working trustee nor Sudhir Dhadda and Sunil Dhadda were the members of the trust and therefore, no appeal could be filed in the name of the trust by them nor as members of the trust. They have also not claimed that they are the persons interested in the trust. Hence, in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act of 1959, the appeal No.20/2018 filed by Sudhir Dhadda and Sunil Dhadda is also not maintainable as they were not having any locus. 24. Now from the pleadings the another issue which emerges is that whether the petitioners Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain could be legally inducted as working trustees and trustee of the trust. Raj Welfare Trust Act was constituted on 29.03.1973 and was registered under the provisions of the Act of 1959. The trust deed dated 29.03.1973 in the beginning para provides that the word “Settlor” shall mean and include ‘unless there is anything repugnant thereto or inconsistent with, the said Shri Manak Raj, his heirs, executors and administrators’. It is not in dispute that the petitioners Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain are the legal heirs of the original Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth. Form No.8 dated 06.05.2010 was submitted by the Settlor Manak Raj Munoth as a working trustee to the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department for not making the legal heirs as the members of the trust. It is not in dispute that the petitioners Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain are the legal heirs of the original Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth. Form No.8 dated 06.05.2010 was submitted by the Settlor Manak Raj Munoth as a working trustee to the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department for not making the legal heirs as the members of the trust. The said form No.8 dated 5.6.2010 is along-with other Form No.8 dated 15.07.2010 in regard to appointment of Sunil Dhadda as administrator. Form No.8 dated 19.7.2010 is in regard to appointment of Sudhir Dhadda as an executor and form No.8 dated 24.10.2012 for inducting G.R. Munoth as a trustee was considered by the Assistant Commissioner and the findings were recorded by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 15.1.2013 as evident from the details submitted on record by the Government Counsel during the course of arguments which have been made as a part of this petition. The order dated 15.1.2013 was challenged by filing two appeals; one appeal No.15/2015 filed by Balraj Munoth and Smt. Manju Surana and another appeal No.20/2015 filed by Ajay Jain, which were allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department vide order dated 26.12.2017 and the order dated 15.1.2013 was quashed and set aside, meaning-thereby the Form No.8 dated 5.6.2010 for not inducting the legal heirs of original Settlor as members of the trust was not accepted and thus, the provisions under the trust deed for inducting the heirs of the Settlor Manak Raj Munoth as trustee remains in effect. 25. Further, the induction of the members of the trust is governed by the Act of 1959 and the Rules of 1962. Rule 22 of the Rules of 1962 provides for submitting the information in regard to the occurred changes or proposed changes of the entries to the Assistant Commissioner in Form No.8. Rule 22 of the Rules of 1962 is quoted as under:- “22. Form and manner in which working trustee is to report changes.— (a) The working trustee shall within the prescribed period report the occurred changes or proposed change of entries to the Assistant Commissioner in Form 8. (b) The Assistant Commissioner shall, after necessary inquiry if any shall cause the entries to amended in accordance with the finding recorded in the register Form No.4.” 26. (b) The Assistant Commissioner shall, after necessary inquiry if any shall cause the entries to amended in accordance with the finding recorded in the register Form No.4.” 26. In the meeting dated 10.12.2012 of the trust presided by the Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth vide resolution No.3 it was decided to induct two new members of the trust and further it was also to seek consent from the petitioners Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain for inducting them as the members of the trust. After the consent of both Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain, they were treated to be the members of the trust and were allowed to participate in the meeting dated 30.1.2013 as members of the trust and the meeting was presided over by the Settlor trustee Shri Manak Raj Munoth. In the meeting dated 30.1.2013 it was also decided to inform the Devsthan Department in Form No.8 in regard to the changes occurred in the trust on induction of Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as members of the trust. In another meeting dated 7.4.2013 which was held subsequent to the death of original Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth on 05.03.2013, it was resolved that since because of the illness of the original Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth, the changes occurred in the trust for induction of Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as trust members in the meetings dated 10.12.2012 and 30.1.2013 could not be intimated to the Devsthan Department in Form No.8, it was resolved in the meeting dated 7.4.2013 to appoint Ajay Jain as the working trustee in place of deceased Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth and Ajay Jain is authorized to submit the Form No.8 to the Devsthan Department in regard to the changes occurred. In pursuance to the resolutions of the trust in its meetings dated 10.12.2012, 30.1.2013 and 7.4.2013, the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013 was submitted to the Devsthan Department in regard to appointment of Ajay Jain as a working trustee and Abhi Jain as the member of the trust. The said form was registered as a case No.34/2013 and the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 17.9.2015 accepted the changes intimated through Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013. The said form was registered as a case No.34/2013 and the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 17.9.2015 accepted the changes intimated through Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013. However, on an appeal No.38/2015 preferred in the name of Raj Welfare Trust through Sunil Dhadda-the working trustee, the said order dated 17.9.2015 was set aside vide order dated 26.12.2017 and the matter was remanded with certain directions to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision. The Assistant Commissioner again vide its order dated 09.04.2018 accepted the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2018 on filing of two appeals No.19/2018 and 20/2018. As referred in the foregoing paras, the order dated 09.04.2018 has been set aside by allowing the appeals. 27. Though in the foregoing paras this Court has already held that both the appeals i.e. 19/2018 and 20/2018 are not maintainable as the persons filing the appeals having no locus. However, while deciding the above appeals the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the resolutions of the Board taken in its meetings dated 10.12.2012, 30.1.2013 and so also the resolution in the meeting dated 7.4.2013 which speaks of the induction of petitioner Ajay Jain as the working trustee and petitioner Abhi Jain as the member of the trust. The Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013 has been submitted on the basis of the resolutions of the trust and the same cannot be ignored without there-being any specific finding to the effect that they are contrary to the provisions of law. 28. Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that while dealing with the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which deals with the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence which has already been considered by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department and has referred the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 , Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subash Chandra Bhatia, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 87 and Jai Singh & Ors. v. Municipal Corp. of Delhi & Anr., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 and the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahant Ramprakash Das Swami v. Assistant Commissioner & Anr., (SBCW P. No.14442/2019), decided on 2nd May, 2022. 29. Subash Chandra Bhatia, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 87 and Jai Singh & Ors. v. Municipal Corp. of Delhi & Anr., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 and the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahant Ramprakash Das Swami v. Assistant Commissioner & Anr., (SBCW P. No.14442/2019), decided on 2nd May, 2022. 29. It is not in dispute that in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence which has already been taken into consideration by the courts below and the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Court. However, it is also a settled law that the power to re-appreciate the evidence would be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes, as has been observed in the case of Jai Singh (supra). The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of the case that the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice. 30. This Court finds that the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, has not accepted the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013 for induction of Ajay Jain as working trustee and Abhi Jain as a member of the trust on the sole ground that the Assistant Commissioner has accepted the Form No.8 on the count that the petitioners Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain are the legal heirs of Settlor trustee, whereas this is not so. As observed in the foregoing paras, as per the trust deed the legal heirs of the Settlor trustee has been included in the expression of the word ‘Settlor’ and further Abhi Jain and Ajay Jain have been made as working trustee and the trust member respectively by the resolutions of the trust taken in its meeting dated 10.12.2012, 30.1.2013 and 7.4.2013 as evident from the record and thereafter the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013 was submitted in view of the Resolution dated 7.4.2013. It is also to be taken into note that the resolutions in regard to inducting the petitioners as the members of the trust was taken in the meeting presided over by the original Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth, hence it cannot be said that the petitioners have been inducted into the Board only being the legal heirs of the original Settlor but they have been inducted as a working trustee and the member of the trust on the basis of the resolutions of the Board. Hence, the finding of the Appellate Authority is perverse and contrary to the facts on record. 31. The Appellate Authority has also given a finding that late Shri Manak Raj Munoth has withdrawn the Form No.8 dated 5.6.2010, 09.06.2010 by declaration dated 28.4.2010 and therefore Ajay Jain cannot submit the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013 being the legal heir of Manak Raj Munoth. In view of the facts stated above, the said finding is also perverse and contrary to the facts on record because the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013 has been submitted in view of the resolutions of the trust taken in its meetings dated 10.12.2012, 30.1.2013 and 7.4.2013. The finding of the Appellate Authority that on the date of filing of the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013 Ajay Jain was not the member of the trust and therefore, he was not authorized to submit the said form. In the meeting dated 10.12.2012 presided over by the Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth, it was decided to induct Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as the members of the trust and after seeking their consent the information be submitted to the Devsthan Department. Again in its meeting dated 30.1.2013 which was presided over by the Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth on consent of the petitioners Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain, they were inducted as the members of the trust and to submit the form No.8 to the Devsthan Department for the said changes in the trust. Since the Settlor Shri Manak Raj Munoth was not well as evident from the proceedings of the meeting of the trust, the trust in its meeting dated 7.4.2013 resolved to appoint Ajay Jain as the working trustee and authorized him to submit the Form No.8 in regard to the changes occurred in the trust by inducting Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as the members of the trust dated 10.12.2012 and 30.1.2013. In view of the resolutions of the Board, Ajay Jain submitted the Form No.8 in the capacity of working trustee. There is no finding of the Appellate Authority that the resolution of the trust in its meeting dated 10.12.2012, 30.1.2013 and 7.4.2013 is contrary to the facts or law. In view of the above finding of the Appellate Court that on 24.4.2013 i.e. on the date of submitting the Form No.8 petitioner Ajay Jain was not the working trustee, is contrary to the facts and law. 32. On the basis of the arguments of the counsels appearing for both the parties an issue has come up before this Court whether the Form No.8 submitted in regard to the occurred changes shall come into effect from the date the changes have occurred or from the date the Assistant Commissioner records its findings in regard to decision of the changes informed. Section 23 of the Act of 1959 deals with the changes in the trust. Section 23 of the Act of 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 therefore 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 subsection (3) or, if an appeal has been filed therefrom, in accordance with 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.” 33. Rule 22 of the Rules of 1962 provides for the manner in which the working trustee is to report the changes. 34. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the changes occurred in the trust by way of resolution of the trust comes into effect from the date the resolution was taken and the said changes became questionable only when the Assistant Commissioner records its findings otherwise. 35. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the changes occurred in the trust and informed in Form No.8 as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1959, shall come into effect after a finding is recorded by the Assistant Commissioner to its satisfaction that said changes have occurred. 36. From the bare perusal of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1959 it is clear that in the manner the changes or proposed changes occurred in the trust may be reported in the prescribed form to the Assistant Commissioner and further the Assistant Commissioner may hold an inquiry for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any particulars recorded in the register which means the Assistant Commissioner is required to make an inquiry for verifying the correctness of the entries and reported changes. The said changes which have been reported shall be of no effect in case the Assistant Commissioner after inquiry records a finding and is not satisfied with the correctness of the reported changes. 37. The Bombay High Court in the case of Chembur Trombay Education Society & Ors. Vs. D.K. Marathe & Ors., reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 842 has observed in paras 10 and 11 as under:- “11. Now we would revert to the second aspect of the matter regarding the relief of mandatory/injunction claimed against the appellants in A.O. No. 1260 of 1995 emanating from Notice of Motion No. 4762 of 1995 in suit No. 5470 of 1995. Now we would revert to the second aspect of the matter regarding the relief of mandatory/injunction claimed against the appellants in A.O. No. 1260 of 1995 emanating from Notice of Motion No. 4762 of 1995 in suit No. 5470 of 1995. The same is pressed essentially on the premise that Shri Marathe still continues to be the life president of the Society. This premise, in my view, is wholly inappropriate. It clearly over looks the fact that the general body of the Society in its meeting dated March 19, 1995 resolved to amend the constitution thereby deleting the provisions which ordained that Shri Marathe shall remain life President of the Society. Besides deleting the said provision, the general body also resolved to amend the constitution by providing that the post of President as well as that of the Governing Council members shall be filled by election only and the term of their office would be upto a period of three years from the date of assuming office. Besides amending the constitution which effected the change, this change has been reported to the competent authority under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Besides this change, another change that occurred pursuant to the general body decision dated June 18, 1995 is that Shri V.M. Pant, Senior Member was elected as a President and other members were elected to the new Governing Council, who assumed office after the said resolution. Even this change was reported to the appropriate authority as required under section 22 of the Act. The argument, however, advanced on behalf of the respondent-Shri Marathe is that the said change will come into effect only after the same is accepted by the appropriate authority. The Counsel for the respondent further contends that the amendment to the constitution is yet to be approved by the appropriate authority and till such time the question of conducting elections on the basis of such amended constitution, as has been done in the present case, is totally without authority of law. He further submits that the change report with regard to the amendment of the constitution, being change Report No. 1456/1995, was initially rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated June 6, 1998 which order was later on set aside by the Joint Charity Commissioner on June 13, 1998 at the instance of appellants in A.O. No. 1260/1995. He further submits that the change report with regard to the amendment of the constitution, being change Report No. 1456/1995, was initially rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated June 6, 1998 which order was later on set aside by the Joint Charity Commissioner on June 13, 1998 at the instance of appellants in A.O. No. 1260/1995. He however, contends that the said decision has been interdicted by the City Civil Court in Charity Appeal Application No. 15/1998. According to him, therefore, the said change report relating to amendment of the constitution is still pending consideration and till such time no steps can be taken on the basis of the amended constitution. This submission is totally misplaced and in the teeth of the settled legal position. The law with regard to the efficacy of any change brought about and its application is no more res integra. The Apex Court in decision reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C.W. 3006; Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School and another v. Smt. Mohinder Kaur and another, has considered this aspect of the matter. The Apex Court was called upon to examine similar provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The scheme of section 12-A of that Act is more or less same as section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Apex Court compared the said provision with the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the Companies Act which mandate that the alteration or amendment to the Memorandum of Association of the Company takes effect from the date of its registration only. In that context the Apex Court in para 11 of the said judgment has observed that in absence of any requirement in the Act that the alteration in the Rules and Regulations must be registered with the Registrar, it cannot be held that registration of the amendment is a condition precedent for such an alteration to come into effect. A priori, any amendment or change brought about in accordance with law would come into effect from the date of resolution of the Society to bring about such a change. This proposition is fortified from the plain language of section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. A priori, any amendment or change brought about in accordance with law would come into effect from the date of resolution of the Society to bring about such a change. This proposition is fortified from the plain language of section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The said section requires that where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under section 17, the trustee shall, within 90 days from the date of the occurrence of such change, report such change to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner, as the case may be. The dictionary meaning of expression "occur" as observed in the Black's Law Dictionary is : "To happy; to meet one's eyes; to be found or met with; to present itself; to appear; hence, to befall in due course; to take place; to arise." 11. Giving the natural meaning to this word in section 22 of the Act, coupled with the principle enunciated by the Apex Court that when the Act does not require that registration of any change is a condition precedent to come into effect, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the amendment to the constitution as well as subsequent elections of the President and members of the Governing Council, therefore, came into effect from the date of the respective resolutions of the general body. The enquiry postulated under section 22 is only to ascertain the factum as to whether the change has occurred or not. In the event, the competent authority is satisfied that the change has not occurred in accordance with law, only then that change will have to be undone and status quo ante will have to be restored. A fortiori, resolution of the general body of the Society is sufficient to ignite the change of amendment in the constitution as well as of electing new general body for administering the affairs of the Society. The fact that the change report is pending consideration before the Charity Commissioner, would be of no avail. Understood thus, as a necessary corollary, it will have to be held that the respondent-Shri Marathe ceased to be the President of the Society from the date when the General Body elected another President in its meeting dated June 18, 1995. The fact that the change report is pending consideration before the Charity Commissioner, would be of no avail. Understood thus, as a necessary corollary, it will have to be held that the respondent-Shri Marathe ceased to be the President of the Society from the date when the General Body elected another President in its meeting dated June 18, 1995. If this be the position, the respondent-Shri Marathe will have no right whatsoever to continue in the post of president and, there would be no question of granting any mandatory relief at this stage.” 38. In the case of Ganesh Vs. Central Hind Military Education Society Nashik & Anr., reported in 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 589 the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur, in para 10 has observed as under:- “10. We find that any of the provisions contained in Bombay Public Trusts Act or the Rules thereunder do not mandate that amendment to the bye-laws or the rules of constitution of society passed by the society or trust shall not operate unless and until said amendment gets approval of Charity Commissioner/ Assistant Charity Commissioner. We therefore, see no reason to take a different view than one taken by the learned Single Judge who has drawn these conclusion on the basis of discussion in the judgment in Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School vs. Mohinder Kaur, reported at 1993 Supp (4) SCC 26.” 39. In view of the observations made in the aforementioned case laws and so also the provisions of law, this Court is of the opinion that the changes occurred and reported to the Assistant Commissioner in regard to the trust as per the given procedure comes into effect from the date such changes have occurred by way of valid resolution of the Board. This Court finds that if such changes are held to come into effect after recording findings of the Assistant Commissioner which sometimes takes long time, the functioning of the trust will be adversely affected and may even be stuck at a point. 40. This Court finds that if such changes are held to come into effect after recording findings of the Assistant Commissioner which sometimes takes long time, the functioning of the trust will be adversely affected and may even be stuck at a point. 40. Counsel appearing for the respondents also made a submission that it is the working trustee who can report to the Assistant Commissioner in Form No.8 about the changes occurred in the trust and on the day of submitting the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013 Ajay Jain was not the working trustee of the trust and therefore signing and filling of the Form No.8 by Ajay Jain is against the provisions of law. The beginning of the trust deed clearly speaks of the Settlor which includes the original Settlor as well as his legal heirs. It is also a fact on record that the trust in its resolution taken in the meeting dated 10.12.2012, has decided to induct Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as the members of the trust and the said meeting was presided over by the Settlor working trustee Shri Manak Raj Munoth after seeking consent of Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain as they were inducted as members of the trust of the Board in the meeting dated 30.1.2013 presided over by the working trustee Shri Manak Raj Munoth. It is also not in dispute that the working trustee Shri Manak Raj Munoth expired on 05.03.2013 and after his death the members of the trust including the petitioners Ajay Jain and Abhi Jain passed a resolution to nominate Ajay Jain as a working trustee. Since after the death of working trustee Late Shri Manak Raj Monoth someone has to report the changes to the Assistant Commissioner which occurred in the trust. The trust has taken the resolution to nominate Ajay Jain as a working trustee and therefore, he submitted the Form No.8 dated 24.4.2013. Thus, this Court can safely say that there is no illegality in submitting the Form No.8 by Ajay Jain as a working trustee. 41. Counsel appearing for the respondents has also raised an issue that Late Shri Manak Raj Munoth never withdrawn the declaration dated 28.04.2010 and the Form No.8 dated 05.06.2010 by which he made clear that his legal heirs cannot be appointed as trustees in his lifetime and even after his death. 41. Counsel appearing for the respondents has also raised an issue that Late Shri Manak Raj Munoth never withdrawn the declaration dated 28.04.2010 and the Form No.8 dated 05.06.2010 by which he made clear that his legal heirs cannot be appointed as trustees in his lifetime and even after his death. The said Form No.8 dated 5.6.2010 as per the details and orders submitted by the Government Counsel on record was considered by the Devsthan Department along-with other Form No.8 by registering a case No.10/2011 and passed the order dated 15.1.2013. The order dated 15.1.2013 was set aside in appeal which was allowed vide order dated 26.12.2017. Therefore, the said Form No.8 dated 5.6.2010 for not inducting the legal heirs of Late Shri Manak Raj Munoth as trust members is not in existence. 42. In view of the detailed discussions made above, this Court holds that the appeals No.19/2018 and 20/2018 decided by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, by separate orders dated 09.07.2019 not maintainable and also findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority are perverse and contrary to the facts and law. 43. As a result, both the writ petitions are allowed. The orders dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, in appeals No.19/2018 and 20/2018 are quashed and set aside. 44. The order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and so also the Form No. 8 dated 24.04.2013 are upheld. Consequences to follow. 45. Since the main petitions has been allowed, the stay applications and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.