HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 887/2021
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10822/2021
Om Shri Narayan Ashram Trust, Pushkar, through its General
Power of Attorney Shri Aditya Joshi S/o Shri Balmukund Joshi,
age 27 years, Resident of Narayn Ashram, Choti Basti, Pushkar,
Distt. Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Vimal Chand Jain S/o Lt. Shri Mulchand Jain,
Resident of Hailoj Road, Pushkar Distt. Ajmer Rajasthan.
2. Assistant Commissioner (Second), Deveasthan
Department, Jaipur, Address Mandir Shri Ramchandr Ji,
Opp. Old Vidhansabha Building Sirhdayodhi Bazar, Jaipur
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Gupta Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari Advocate.
Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, Additional Advocate General.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 10/03/2022 Heard.
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. (Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 09:13:25 PM)
(2 of 3) [SAW-887/2021] 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.
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.
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 (Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 09:13:25 PM) (3 of 3) [SAW-887/2021] 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.
Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ MANOJ NARWANI /67 (Downloaded on 15/03/2022 at 09:13:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)