Rajasthan High Court
Shri Ajay Jain S/O Shri Manakraj Munoth vs Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhaag ... on 22 November, 2023
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2023:RJ-JP:35082]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14871/2019
1. Shri Ajay Jain S/o Shri Manakraj Munoth, Resident Of-
Raj Vihar, Mile-6/4, Taaron Ki Koont, Tonk Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Shri Abhi Jain S/o Shri Ajay Jain, Resident Of -Raj Vihar,
Mile- 6/4, Taaron Ki Koont, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhaag Rajasthan, Udaipur.
2. Raj Welfare Trust, Tonk Road, Jaipur (A Registered Public
Trust) Situated At Tonk Road, Jaipur Through A Trustee
Smt. Manju Kothari W/o Shri Shiv Prakash Kothari,
Resident Of 142, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan) (Wrongly Represented Through Smt. Manju
Kothari Who Is Not A Trustee In The Said Trust).
3. Smt. Manju Kothari W/o Shri Prakash Kothari, Resident Of
142, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14860/2019
1. Shri Ajay Jain S/o Shri Manakraj Munoth, Aged About 45
Years, Resident Of- Raj Vihar, Mile-6/4, Taaron Ki Koont,
Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Abhi Jain S/o Shri Ajay Jain, Resident Of -Raj Vihar,
Mile- 6/4, Taaron Ki Koont, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhaag Rajasthan, Udaipur.
2. Raj Welfare Trust, Tonk Road, Jaipur (A Registered Public
Trust) Situated At Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Sunil
Dhadha, Working Trustee (Wrongly Represented Through
Sunil Dhadha Who Is Not The Working Trustee).
3. Shri Sunil Dhadha S/o Shri Heeralal Ji Dhadha, Resident
Of- House No. 730, Dhadha Bhawan, Gopal Ji Ka Raasta,
Chaura Raasta, Jaipur, Working Trustee Raj Welfare Trust,
Tonk Road, Jaipur (Wrongly Stated To Be Working Trustee
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (2 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
Raj Welfare Trust).
4. Shri Sudhir Dhadha S/o Shri Heeralal Ji Dhadha, Resident
Of- House No. 730, Dhadha Bhawan, Gopal Ji Ka Raasta,
Chaura Raasta, Jaipur, Working Trustee Raj Welfare Trust,
Tonk Road, Jaipur (Wrongly Stated To Be Working Trustee
Raj Welfare Trust).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ashish Sharma
Mr. Vineet Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma,
Mr. G. Mishra Manav, AGC
Mr. Shailesh Sharma AGC
Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Varnit Jain
Mr. Nikhil Simlote
Mr. Yug Singh
Mr. Salim Khan
Mr. R.K. Daga
Mr. R.S. Chauhan
Mr. Prashant
Mr. Hitesh Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
Date of Reserve ::: October 03, 2023
Date of Pronouncement ::: November 22, 2023
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
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (3 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (4 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (5 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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.
On an appeal against the order dated
15.01.2013, the Commissioner, Devsthan Department,
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (6 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (7 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (8 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (9 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (10 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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.
(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:36 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (11 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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, reappreciation 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (12 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (13 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (14 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (15 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (16 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (17 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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:-
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (18 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
"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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (19 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (20 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (21 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (22 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (23 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (24 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (25 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (26 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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 reappreciate 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (27 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (28 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (29 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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,
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (30 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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 sub-
section (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.
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (31 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (32 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (33 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (34 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. The said section
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (35 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (36 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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.
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (37 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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. 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
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (38 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (39 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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,
[2023:RJ-JP:35082] (40 of 40) [CW-14871/2019]
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.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Sharma NK-Dy. Registrar
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
