[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bastimal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 April, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:20122-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 222/2026
1. Bastimal S/o Sh. Chunilal, Aged About 85 Years, R/o
201/02, Ivory Tower, Sayani Road, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-
400025.
2. Gajendra Dhalawat S/o Bastimal, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o 201/02, Ivory Tower, Sayani Road, Prabha Devi,
Mumbai-400025.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Devasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Assistant Commissioner, Department Of Devasthan,
Jodhpur.
3. Manmohan Parshwanath Jain Pedhi Trust, Sesali Shree
Parshwanath Chowk, Bali, District Pali, 306701, Rajasthan
Through Its Secretary.
4. Shri Babulal Bhurmalji Mandlesha, President Manmohan
Parshwanath Jain Pedhi Trust, R/o 17, Sindhu Bldg., 4Th
Flr., Grd 87 Netaji Subhash Chandra R.d, Marine Drive,
Mumbai-400020 At Present R/o Rainbow Exim Trade Llp,
Office No. 7 And 8, Ground Floor, Sitaram Mill Compound,
Tantia N. Jogani Industrial Estate, J.r. Boricha Marg,
Lower Parel (E), Mumbai 400011.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
Mr. Om Prakash Mehta
Mr. Girish Joshi
Mr. Kshitij Vyas
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
28/04/2026
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:13:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20122-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-222/2026]
1. The instant Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the
appellants-petitioners assailing the order dated 06.02.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby
directions were issued to the respondents to conduct auction
proceedings in respect of flag hoisting at Mulnayak Shree Sesali
Parshwanath Jain Tirth, Village Sesali, District Pali.
2. At the threshold, the dispute pertains to the right of flag
hoisting at Mulnayak Shree Sesali Parshwanath Jain Tirth situated
at Village Sesali, District Pali.
3. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench
related to flag hoisting for the year 2026, which has already taken
place and thus, the issue for the year 2026 has become
infructuous.
4. Vide order dated 17.02.2026, this Hon'ble Court had passed
the following interim order :-
"1. Issue notice.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice
on behalf of the Devasthan Department and Mr.Pushkar
Tamini, learned counsel accepts notice, who appears as
caveator.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our
notice that earlier, they had filed a writ petition and they
had been protected by this Court, whereafter, since the
purpose was served, they were allowed to hoist the flag,
they withdrew the writ petition as having become
infructuous. Further, thereafter the Trust again has
initiated action of auctioning the flag hoisting.
Resultantly, the appellants filed a fresh petition before
this Court after having approached the Devsthan
Department, who did not complete their exercise on
their complaint.
4. Learned counsel further submits that in the writ
petition, without addressing to his grievance, the Court
has proceeded to pass an adverse order against the writ
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:13:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20122-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-222/2026]
petitioners and directed the respondents to conduct
auction proceedings in respect of the flag hoisting at the
temple subject to the final outcome of the writ petition
which virtually amounts to disposal of the writ petition
against the writ petitioners.
5. Prima facie, although, we are of the opinion that
disputes relating to individuals in relation to Public Trust
can be either taken up under the Public Trust Act or
before the Devsthan Department or before the Civil
Court, in the present case, we find that the writ
petitioners have already approached the Devsthan
Department and thereafter they have come before the
Court.
6. In view thereto, we stay the effect and operation of
the order dated 06.02.2026 and restrain the respondent
No.3 and 4 from auctioning the flag hoisting process of
the temple till the next date.
7. List the case again on 23.03.2026.
8. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the Devasthan
Department will inform this Court as to what
proceedings have been taken by them under the Public
Trust Act."
5. Mr. B.L. Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents-State submits that the issue has
already been decided by the Devasthan Department vide order
dated 13.02.2026, which was placed before the learned Single
Judge. He further submits that while keeping the rights of all
parties open to contest the matter on merits before the learned
Single Bench, the present Special Appeal may be disposed of, as
the issue for the year 2026 is no longer alive and the next auction,
if any, would be for the year 2027.
6. In view of the limited submissions made by the learned
Additional Advocate General and the fact that the present Special
Appeal is directed against the interim order dated 06.02.2026
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:13:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20122-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-222/2026]
passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court is not inclined to
enter into further adjudication on merits at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal (Writ) is disposed of,
accepting the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate
General, while keeping all rights and contentions of the parties
open to be raised on merits in respect of flag hoisting for the year
2027 before the learned Single Bench of this Court.
8. It is made clear that the question of auction, if any, for the
year 2027 shall remain open for the parties to contest before the
learned Single Bench in accordance with law.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
46-Sudheer/nishantk-
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:13:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
