Om Shri Narayan Ashram Trust vs Shri Vimal Chand Jain S/O Lt. Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2145 Raj/2

          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.

(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

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)