Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) SHREE Achalgach Jain Shwetambar Trust, a public trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959 (for short, 'Act'), with its Office bearers have jointly preferred this writ petition to challenge impugned order Dt. 4th of August, 2015 (Annex. 15) passed by Assistant Commissioner, Deavsthan Department Jodhpur with other ancillary reliefs. In substance, the petitioners have craved for issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain to Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department from conducting inquiry under Sec. 23 of the Act. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are, that in village Bhinmal, District Jalore many families reposing faith in Jain religion are living since time immemorial and some of them are professing the tenets of Achalgach sect. As per version of petitioners, for almost last nine centuries Sangh is maintaining a temple, dharmshala and other movable and immovable properties owned by Sangh, and as per prevailing tradition, village Bhinmal and its Haveli Patti of nine villages are being managed by the family of second petitioner as its Mukhiya/head. Earlier, second petitioner's father and grand -father also remained in helm of affairs of the Sangh. After promulgation of the Act, Sangh was registered as a public trust and an order to this effect was passed by third respondent on 21st July, 1987. A copy of registration certificate bearing registration number of the trust as 3/87 is also placed on record. The petitioners have set out a specific case that the Trust is an agglomeration of the persons having faith in Achalgach sect and there is no formal mode of conferment of membership to its followers. With these averments, it is also pleaded that there exists no formal list of members of the Trust. By efflux of time, many followers of Achalgach sect migrated from Bhinmal but their commitment for the Sangh remained undiminished and many of them attend annual function of temple so also other social functions on receiving intimation from Sewak and mouth publicity. It is averred in the petition that since inception of the Trust, members of the Trust have unanimously selected the trustees in a cordial and congenial manner. In fact, they have reposed immense faith in the Trust and as such said atmosphere has created no formal distinction between members and the trustees. Most of the members and trustees are close family members and neighbours. The petitioners have specifically averred in the writ petition that a meeting of general body of Trust was convened on 16th September, 2013 by sending intimation through Sewak/Pujari as per practice and in accordance with the trust -deed, and the said meeting was attended by 22 members. After conclusion of the meeting, a resolution was taken to induct new trustees, namely, Mukesh Kumar S/o. Devi Chand, Kishor Mal S/o. Shri Tagaji and Vijay Kumar S/o. Shri Laxmanji in place of three trustees namely Shri Devichand, Rikhab Chand and Indermal on account of their death. The election of these three trustees facilitated the requisite strength of thirteen trustees of the Trust as per the trust -deed. It is further averred that immediately on election of three new trustees, requisite information was divulged to third respondent by letter Dt. 20th of September, 2013.
(2.) IT transpires from the pleadings that second petitioner personally visited the office of third respondent along with list of thirteen trustees and letter Dt. 20th September, 2013 but the third respondent made an endorsement on the said letter asking second petitioner to furnish details in prescribed Form -8 along with resolution of the Trust. Second respondent also sought explanation about delay in furnishing such information. Thereupon, requisite informations were furnished in the office of third respondent alongwith Form No. 8 vide letter Dt. 29th May, 2015. After receiving the aforesaid letter and the requisite information in prescribed Form No. 8, third respondent commenced inquiry under Sec. 23 of the Act by registering the proceedings on 9th June, 2015. Third respondent asked the Trust to produce the documents by fixing next date as 6th of July, 2015. It so happened, as is evident from the pleadings, that second petitioner called a general body meeting of the Trust on 12th of June, 2015 at 3:00 PM, wherein as per the version of the petitioners, some of the miscreants created ruckus and that led to adjournment of the meeting when the inquiry proceedings were going on before third respondent.
(3.) THEREAFTER , counsel representing cause of respondent No. 4 & 5 submitted an application on 15th June 2015 along with Form No. 8 under the signature of fourth respondent showing the names and details of newly elected trustees, who were elected on 12th of June, 2015. In the application, Form No. 8 submitted to third respondent an intimation that the general body has elected 22 trustees on 12th June, 2015 is divulged. For substantiating these assertions, the minutes of the meeting of the Trust are also enclosed. The petitioners have categorically alleged in the writ petition that the minutes of the meeting Dt. 12th June 2015, submitted by respondents No. 4 & 5 are forged and spurious documents and as such these documents have no legal sanctity. It is further averred that the minutes are recorded in absence of second petitioner, who is President of the Trust, and in want of his signature on the minutes, such minutes are void and of no significance. The petitioners have set out a specific case that some of the miscreants created disturbance in the meeting Dt. 12th of June, 2015, and because of their nefarious designs and nuisance second petitioner postponed the meeting. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have came out with a case that after adjournment of meeting by its President, respondents No. 4 & 5 organized an unlawful congregation to give it shape of general body meeting, and therefore, the so -called election of 22 trustees is an outcome of that congregation. Categorising the said meeting as illegal, the petitioners have taken serious exception to the so -called trustees elected in that meeting. As per petitioners, the alleged trustees have no right to act as trustees or to misuse the name of the Trust.;