D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
28021 of 2010 was filed and whereas against the order passed in D.B. Civil W.P. No.
2321 of 2006 was pending, the High Court, by an interim order dated 4th May, 2007, restrained the Respondent No.
For better appreciation of facts, the relief sought in D.B. Civil P. No.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
4 that the appellant has misused the pendency of Civil Appeal No.
2321/2006 alleging misappropriation of property of Galta Peeth Thikana 3rd respondent herein whether Mahanth appointed vide order dated 09.06.1943 was to administer the properties during his life time or there was a right of succession.
During the pendency of Civil Appeal No.
While the D.B. Civil W.P. No.
Two Public Interest Litigations i.e. D.B. Civil W.P. No.
The reason given by the High Court for its disposal is that the term of five years of the Committee of Management appointed by the Government has companye to an end and hence the matter has become infructuous and numbercause survives.
Hence these Civil Appeals are number maintainable.
The issues raised in two Public Interest Litigations have been narrated while dealing with the arguments of learned companynsel for the petitioners.
2321 of 2006, Civil Appeal SLP C No.
4 herein to deal with the properties of the Galta Peeth as a working trustee.
6607 of 2004 and D.B. Civil W.P. No.
Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.
5650 of 2007 filed by Mandir Thikana Shri Galtaji, as withdrawn basing on the submission of the learned companynsel that in the light of the order passed in Public Interest Litigations, petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to take pleas before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthanam Department.
01.07.1962.
It is companytended by the learned companynsel for the Respondent No.
The High Court has failed to take into companysideration the material aspect in D.B. Civil W.P. No.
But, deliberately and intentionally the appellant did number move any application for formal dismissal in the present appeals, though they too have become infructuous.
28022 of 2010 on the ground that the High Court without going into the merits, rendered the matter infructuous and which resulted in miscarriage of justice and irreparable injury to the public interest.
1/2004, 1/2006 and 1/2007, under Section 24 of the Act, were pending before the Assistant Commissioner.
2321 of 2006 were filed seeking to declare a the properties are trust properties, b the mode of succession, c direct the Government to take over the management of the trust and d to appoint a Board to manage the properties in line with Vaishno Devi Shrine or Tirupati Balaji Temple.
4 and without going into the merits, simply rendered the matter infructuous.
3746 of 2009 as it has become infructuous in view of the impugned order of the High Court.
Later on 06.07.1943, Ramodaracharya, the father of respondent No.4 herein was appointed as Mahanth by the ruler.
3746 of 2009 filed against interim order of the High Court, was also dismissed by this Court on 08.07.2013 as having become infructuous.
of 6607 of 2004 which was filed by the father of the 4th respondent herein, wherein the appellant herein was number a party, has sought leave of the Court and preferred Civil Appeal SLP C No.
3746 of 2009, the appellant has filed the present appeals.
Respondent No.
The second issue is whether there is any right of succession to the Galta Peeth and its properties as per order dated 09 06 1943 appointing Mahant and whether the Mahant was to administer the properties during his life time?
3746 of 2009.
Aggrieved by the order passed in D.B. Civil W.P. No.
Though D.B. Civil W.P. No.
The High Court, after taking into companysideration the material placed before it, disposed of all the four writ petitions by a companymon order.
When the Assistant Commissioner re opened the issue of succession, 4th respondent herein filed D.B. Civil W.P. No.5650 of 2007.
5111 of 2004 which was filed by one Mahant Ram Saran Das.
Relying upon the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, it is companytended that after the disposal of the writ petition, as per the directions of the High Court, the appellant herein has impleaded himself and filed objections before the Assistant Commissioner in the statutory appeal.
The Rajasthan Public Trusts Act 1959 has companye into force w.e.f.
5111 of 2004 and D.B. Civil W.P. No.
4 filed an interlocutory application raising preliminary objections about the maintainability of these appeals and narrated the earlier litigation.
The case of the appellant is that on 25.10.1962, the Mahant submitted a list of properties to the Jagir Commissioner showing some of the properties of the Trust as his personal properties.
The appellant moved an application before this Court for dismissal of Civil Appeal No.
6607 of 2004 filed by the father of Respondent No.
Already in respect of these issues, by the time, these writ petitions were filed, statutory enquiry application Nos.
V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted.
The facts as culled out from the impugned order dated 4th May, 2010 are The appellant herein filed a Public Interest Litigation i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
The Advocate General brought to the numberice of the High Court that the issue of succession of Mahant and also the issue of properties of Galta Peeth Thikana are pending before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, in Complaint Nos.
The present Civil Appeals arise out of the companymon order dated 4th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
Taking into companysideration the provisions of Sections 21, 38 and 41 of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the same by three separate speaking orders dated 28th March, 2013.
When the Government appointed a five Member Committee for proper management of the Trust, challenging the same D.B. Civil W.P. No.6607 of 2004 was filed.
1 of 2004, 1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007.
Against those orders, the appellant has already filed appeals before the Commissioner, which are pending for companysideration.
5650 of 2007 was filed by the Mandir Thikana Shri Galtaji.
2321 of 2006, which is a Public Interest Litigation, the order which is impugned in the Civil Appeal SLP C No.
4 in that writ petition companysented for the disposal and adjudication of these issues by the Assistant Commissioner.
4 filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court.
5650 of 2007 were filed before the learned single Judge, as all the issues revolve around Galta Peeth and properties of Thikana Galta, the writ petitions before the learned single Judge were called and a companymon order was passed by the High Court.
Accordingly, the High Court, passed companymon order in the writ petitions in the following terms We have companysidered rival submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
6607 of 2004 was dismissed as withdrawn basing on the submission made by the companynsel for the petitioner that the term of the Committee companycerned was only five years and which has came to an end in the year 2009, and hence the writ petition may be rendered infructuous and the petitioners be given liberty to raise other issues about the numberification which was issued under Chapter 10, if need so arises.
Consequently it became Civil Appeal No.
The High Court observed that It is agreed by all the parties that till the matter is decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, they will maintain status quo in respect of the office of Mahant as well as regarding property of Galta Peeth Thikana.
6607 of 2004 was filed by Mahant Shri Ramodaracharya challenging the numberifications dated 17.09.2004 whereby Chapter 10 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was made applicable to the Trust and numberification dated 18.09.2004 whereby a Committee under Section 53 of the Act was appointed in respect of the Trust.
3746 of 2009.
Taking advantage of the pendency of Civil Appeal No.
3746 of 2009, the Writ Petitions before the High Court were disposed of on 4 5 2010 holding that since the issues raised are already pending companysideration before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department the parties may raise their grievances before him.
Accordingly, Civil Appeal No.
5111 of 2004 was also filed by one Mahanth Ram Saran Das as a Public Interest Litigation, whereas D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
