w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Narendra Bhansali v/s Akhil Bhartiya Bhansali Samaj Seva Trust & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- BHANSALI & COMPANY PVT. LTD. [Under Liquidation] CIN = U51226WB1993PTC059951

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109JK2000PTC002046

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098902

    Civil Writ Petition No. 12378 of 2015

    Decided On, 01 December 2015

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

    For the Petitioner: Narendra Bhansali, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.



Judgment Text

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 26.8.15 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner raising objections against the reply to the objections filed by the respondent in proceedings under Section 18 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short "the Act"), stands rejected.

2. The relevant facts are that second respondent filed an application under Section 17 of the Act, for registration of a public trust namely, Akhil Bhartiya Bhansali Samaj Seva Trust, Jodhpur, in the form prescribed under Rule 17 (2) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Rules, 1962. The enquiry for registration was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan in terms of Section 18 of the Act. In response to the public notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, under Section 18(2) of the Act, the petitioner filed objections on 21.10.13. A reply to the objections was filed on behalf of the respondent Trust on 3.7.15.

3. The petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, inter alia raising objections against the reply filed on behalf of the Trust. The petitioner questioned the authority of one Shri Kalyan Mal Bhansali, who had filed reply on behalf of the Trust, signed by the second respondent. The petitioner objected the reply filed in english language being taken on record. That apart, the petitioner prayed that since the respondent Trust has not filed parawise reply to the objections and therefore, the objections raised by him must be deemed to be accepted. The petitioner also sought directions that the respondent Trust may be directed to file translation in hindi of the reply to the objections filed in english. In response to the objection raised as aforesaid, the second respondent filed hindi translation of the reply, which was taken on record.

4. After due consideration, the objections raised by the petitioner regarding non filing of parawise reply to the objections, has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan by the order impugned, observing that the respondent herein cannot be compelled to file the parawise reply to the objections. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the matter is still pending enquiry and thus, till the enquiry is conducted on various issues, no further proceedings in respect to the objections can be taken. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. Hence, this petition.

5. The petitioner contended that as per provisions of Section 69 of the Act, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act, shall apply to all proceedings before the court under the Act and therefore, in absence of specific parawise denial of the objections, the Assistant Commissioner has seriously erred in not treating the objections raised by the petitioner as deemed to have been accepted by the respondent. The petitioner submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 18 (2) of the Act while passing the order impugned.

6. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner and perused the material on record.

7. It is to be noticed that in response to the objection raised by the petitioner, the respondent Trust has already filed hindi translation of the reply duly signed by the second respondent. The provisions of Section 69 of the Act referred to by the petitioner relates to the proceedings before the court which under Section 2(6) of the Act has been defined to mean as 'District Court' and it does not refer to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, as such. Be that as it may, the respondent cannot be compelled to file parawise reply to the objections raised by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, even the absence of reply to the objections on behalf of the respondents, may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the objections raised are deemed to be accepted by the respondents. In any case, if averments made by the petitioner in the objections filed are not specifically denied by the respondents, the consequence will follow. But at this stage, when the objections raised by the petitioner are pending consideration and the enquiry as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act, is still pending, the question of the Assistant Commissioner drawing conclusion at this stage as suggested by the petitioner, does not arise. As per the mandate of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, after completion of the enquiry under Section 18, the Assistant Commissioner shall record the findings with the reasons therefor as to the matters mentioned in the said section and thus, obviously, the objections raised by the petitioner sh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

all also be appropriately dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner, at the appropriate stage. 8. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Assistant Commissioner, cannot be faulted with. To say the least, the petition preferred by the petitioner is absolutely frivolous. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs Rs.10,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur, within a period of one month. Petition dismissed.
O R