[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ankur Maglani vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:3158]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19691/2025

Ankur Maglani S/o Ramesh Kuamr Maglani, Aged About 46
Years, R/o 22-H, A Block, Old Ward No.20, New 23, Ganganagar,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
                                                                            ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
         Devasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The Assistant Commissioner, Department Of Devasthan,
         Circle Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3.       Shri Ajay Nagpal S/o Sh. Gyan Chand Nagpal, R/o 55 P
         Block, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
4.       Shri Ashok Bhootna S/o Madan Lal Bhootna, R/o 167 G
         Block, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                 :   Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.
                                      Mr. Gaurav Ranka.
For Respondent(s)                 :   Mr. Rajesh Parihar.
                                      Mr. Nishant Gaba.



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Conclusion of Arguments & Reserved on : 14/01/2026 Pronounced on : 23/01/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary

objections raised by the private respondents No.3 & 4 with regard

to the maintainability of the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on caveat on behalf of the private

respondents No.3 & 4 has raised following preliminary

objections :-

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (2 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

A. It is submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file

the present writ petition in the following manner :-

I. It is submitted that the private respondents preferred

an application under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trust

Act, 1959 ('the Act') against Shri Arorvansh Sanatan Dharam

Mandir Trust, highlighting various irregularities committed by

the sitting trustees in the management of the Trust affairs.

It is also submitted that since the application was submitted

against the Trust, therefore, the petitioner in individual

capacity could not have any grievance against an order,

which has been passed on the application filed by the

respondents under Section 38 of the Act.

II. It is submitted that after passing of the impugned

order, a suit has been instituted against the Trust and not

against the petitioner in his personal or individual capacity

and for this reason too, the present writ petition filed by the

petitioner is not maintainable.

III. In the writ petition it has nowhere been mentioned

anything about the locus of the petitioner or under what

capacity the present writ petition has been filed. It is

submitted that there is no resolution of the Trust authorizing

the present petitioner to file the present writ petition nor it is

claimed anywhere in the writ petition that petitioner has

been authorized by the Trust to file the present writ petition.

IV. It is submitted that no adverse or coercive direction has

been issued against the petitioner and therefore, no cause of

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (3 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

action arises for the petitioner to invoke the extra-ordinary

writ jurisdiction of this Court.

V. While referring to the application submitted by the

private respondents under Section 38 of the Act, it is

submitted that in the application the allegations were with

regard to mismanagement of the Trust. The petitioner is

unauthorizedly occupying the position of the President and

further misusing the trust property. It was also contended

that the tenure of the present petitioner was already over

and misusing his position, the tenure was got extended. It is

further submitted that the managing trustee, in complete

violation of the bye-laws, is neither maintaining nor

providing the accounts and that mass-scale irregularities are

being committed by the managing trustees of the Trust.

The contents of the application itself indicated that

power under Section 38 of the Act is invoked by the private

respondents raising an issue with regard to mismanagement

of the Trust and therefore, permission was sought that they

may be allowed to institute appropriate civil suit against the

Trust. It is submitted that a reply to the said application was

filed by the petitioner as the President of the Trust.

Based on the above submissions, it is contended that

the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the

present petitioner.

VI. In support of the submissions made, learned counsel

for the respondents has relied on the judgment passed by

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (4 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Contigent

Employees Union & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(DBCWP No.16777/2019), decided on 10.01.2022,

wherein it was held that the writ petition filed without proper

authorization is liable to be dismissed.

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment

passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Suresh

Agarwal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in

2016 Supreme (All) 2487, wherein it was held that locus

standi is essential for maintaining the writ petition and

without demonstrating a right or interest in the subject

matter, the petitioner lacks the standing to bring the writ

petition.

Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment

passed by the Calcutta High Court in Rigmadirappa

Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Kolkata Municipal

Corporation & Ors., reported in 2024 Supreme (Cal)

1493, wherein it was held that the locus standi requires a

party to demonstrate a legal right or interest in the subject

matter of the litigation.

B. The second objection raised by the private respondents with

regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition is based

on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties :-

I. While elaborating such objection, it is submitted that

the impugned order clearly indicates that the permission has

been granted by the respondent No.2 to file a civil suit

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (5 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

which has been filed against the Trust as per provisions of

the law. Therefore, without impleading Trust and the serving

trustees, who are necessary parties, the present writ petition

is not maintainable.

II. In terms of the permission granted by the respondent

No.2, the respondents have filed a suit against the Trust.

This further indicates that only aggrieved party against the

impugned order, if at all, could be the Trust and therefore,

the writ petition without impleading the Trust is not

maintainable.

III. In support of this objection, learned counsel for the

respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by this

Court in the case of Ram Chand Tolani Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2003 (3) WLC 290,

wherein it was held that any person, who may be adversely

affected, is a necessary party and not impleading a

necessary party amounts to violation of the principles of

natural justice.

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment

passed by this Court in the case of M/s Fatehpuria

Dharmarth Trust Vs. Institute of Advance Studies in

Education, reported in 2021 Supreme (Raj.) 415,

wherein it was held that non-joinder of a necessary party can

lead to the dismissal of a writ petition.

Similarly, reliance has also been placed on the

judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kamji Vs.

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (6 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1980 WLN 90,

wherein too it was observed that party directly affected

should be impleaded as party and non-joinder of such

necessary party would result in dismissal of the writ petition.

C. The respondents have raised another preliminary objection

with regard to cause of action. It is submitted that no prejudice

has been caused in granting permission to institute suit against

the Trust. It is further submitted that granting permission does not

by itself determine any right or liability of the petitioner and

therefore, the institution of suit against the Trust causes no

prejudice to the petitioner nor it gives any cause to the petitioner

to file the present writ petition. It is also submitted that the actual

adjudication of the issues raised in the suit is to be decided after

following due procedure of law and the petitioner shall have full

opportunity to raise all permissible objections in accordance with

law while submitting written submissions on behalf of the Trust.

In support of such submission, the petitioner has referred to

the judgment passed in the case of Ram Chand Tolani (supra) and

Suresh Aggarwal (supra) and submitted that unless the petitioner

is able to show any violation of legal right, the writ petition would

not be maintainable.

3. In response to the preliminary objections as raised by the

private respondents, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

has made following submissions :-

(i) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being a

President of the Trust and therefore, the petitioner is having locus

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (7 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

standi to maintain the present writ petition. While elaborating his

argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since

the petitioner is the President of the Trust, he is directly concerned

with the management of the Trust, therefore, if any allegations are

levelled against the Trust, then it is the petitioner who in his

capacity as President is answerable to it. That being so, the

petitioner can maintain the present writ petition.

(ii) While referring to the application filed by the private

respondents under Section 38 of the Act, it was contended that all

the allegations levelled in the said application are primarily against

the present petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has rightly

preferred the present writ petition. Further, while referring to the

contents of the application so also the reply filed by the petitioner

to the said application, it is submitted that the petitioner is directly

aggrieved by the impugned order as it has been passed

considering the allegations made against the petitioner so also his

reply to the application. Consequently, it cannot be said that the

petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present writ

petition.

(iii) While responding to two other objections, it is submitted that

the petitioner can maintain the present writ petition without

impleading the Trust as a party, as the allegations are directly

against the present petitioner, who is the President of the Trust.

Therefore, without impleading Trust as a party, the issue raised in

the present writ petition can be decided. The Trust is neither a

necessary nor a proper party.

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (8 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

(iv) As far as the objection with regard to the cause of action is

concerned, it is submitted that the entire application moved by the

private respondents alleges and levels accusations against the

present petitioner. That being so, it cannot be said that there is no

cause of action in the present writ petition. As a matter of fact,

the petitioner has rightly filed the present writ petition in order to

counter the serious allegations levelled against him, as well as to

safeguard the interests of the Trust. The decision to institute a

civil suit is based on the report, which itself does not indicate any

cause to allow the application under Section 38 of the Act.

4. In view of the submissions made by the respective parties on

the preliminary objections, it is observed as under :-

(i) The title of the writ petition nowhere indicates that the writ

petition has been filed on behalf of the President of the Trust or

being authorized by the Trust. It is merely indicated in para 5 of

the writ petition that the petitioner is the President of the Trust

and is managing affairs of the Trust in a total transparent manner

and is abiding by the bye-laws of the Trust and the Act. This

submission nowhere reflects that the present writ petition has

been filed after receiving authorization from the Trust. The title so

also the facts stated in the writ petition gives clear impression that

the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in his individual

capacity.

(ii) Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to

reproduce the operative part of the impugned order dated

16.09.2025 :-

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (9 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

"i=koyh esa miyC/k fjdkMZ] fujh{kd fjiksVZ ,oa cgl dk /;kuiw.kZd v/;;u ,oa euu djus ds i'pkr~ eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd Jh vjksM+oa'k lukru /keZ eafnj VªLV] Jhxaxkuxj dh lEifr dk leqfpr izca/ku yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e 1959 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i ugha gks jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 24-06-2025 dks vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkZuk i= esa pquko ,oa dk;Zdky ds laca/k esa tks rF; vafdr fd;s gS mudk fu.kZ; izdj.k la[;k 45@2025 vUrxZr /kkjk esa i`Fkd ls fd;k tkosxkA izkFkhZx.k Jh vt; ukxiky] Jh v'kksd Hkwruk dks jktLFkku lkoZtfud izU;kl vf/kfu;e 1959 dh /kkjk 38 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr ftyk U;k;ky; Jhxaxkuxj esa funsZ'k izkIr djus gsrq okn nk;j djus dh LohÑfr iznku dh tkrh gSA i=koyh ckn rkehy uEcj ls de gksdj nkf[ky n¶rj gksA fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr izU;kl dk;kZy; ,oa ,d izfr dk;kZy; gktk ds uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik dh tk;sA"

From perusal of the direction issued by the Assistant

Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Hanumangarh, it is

indicated that so far as the allegation with regard to the election

of the petitioner is concerned, the authority was not inclined to

grant any relief and has observed that the issue with regard to the

election and the tenure shall be considered in the proceedings

which have been initiated under Section 23 of the Act, however,

the application was allowed only to the extent of mismanagement

of the Trust.

Considering the above order, this Court is of the firm opinion

that the application was moved by the private respondents under

Section 38 of the Act highlighting the irregularities in managing

the affairs of the Trust. Of course, in the application, there were

allegations with regard to the elections and the tenure, however,

the Assistant Collector did not choose to dwell upon such

submissions and kept it open to be decided in accordance with

Section 23 of the Act. However, allowed the application under

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (10 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

Section 38 only to the extent of adjudicating the allegations of

mismanagement of the Trust. This further indicates that if at all

there could be grievance against the impugned order then it could

only be raised by the Trust and not the petitioner in an individual

capacity or even as a President of the Trust.

Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present writ

petition which has been preferred by the petitioner in an individual

capacity is not maintainable and he has no locus standi to

question the impugned order.

Further, taking note of the fact that the application under

Section 38 of the Act has been partly allowed and while doing so,

the private respondents were constrained to institute a civil suit

against the Trust so also considering the fact that the suit has

been instituted only against the Trust, therefore, without

impleading Trust as a party, the present writ petition is not

maintainable. This Court has no hesitation in observing that the

Trust is a necessary party and without impleading the Trust as

party, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

(iii) The respondents have also raised objection with regard to

the cause of action so also with regard to prejudice to be caused

to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to examine the same in

light of the fact that this Court has already held in above paras

that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present writ

petition.

5. In view of the discussion made above, the preliminary

objection with regard to locus standi of the present writ petition so

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3158] (11 of 11) [CW-19691/2025]

also the objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ

petition in absence of necessary party is accepted.

6. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

7. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J Rmathur/-

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:57:09 PM)