JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 17-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 677 
JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4593-4594 of 2014) 
APRIL 17, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 - ss. 24 and 53 -
Registration of the Peethl Thikana as a Public Trust under C 
the Act - Appointment of a Committee uls. 53- Mahant of the 
Peeth challenging the appointment of the Committee - Public 
Interest Litigations seeking declaration of the properties of the 
Peeth as Trust properties, for ascertaining the mode of 
succession and for direction to the Government to take over D 
the management of the Trust- High Court relegated the Pl Ls 
to the statutory authority in view of the facts that the issues of 
right to succession and administration of the properties of the 
Pe.eth were pending consideration uls. 24 before Asstt. 
Commissioner, Devasthanam Department -
The Court, 
E 
however, dismissed the petition challenging the appointment 
of the Committee, as infructuous - Held: The Act is a self-
contained Act providing appropriate mechanism - It clearly 
demonstrates the power and jurisdiction of the Assistant 
Commissioner in deciding the issues pertaining to public trust 
F 
and particularly the issues raised in the present cases - High 
Court rightly relegated the issues to be decided by the 
statutory authority -
The Assistant Commissioner was 
empowered under the Act to adjudicate the issues involved . 
- The appellant having approached the statutory authority 
has availed the alternative remedy available under the Act G 
and hence cannot be permitted to avail two remedies 
simultaneously by approaching the Supreme Court -
The 
677 
H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A appellants also cannot be said to be aggrieved by dismissal 
of the petition as infructuous. 
Public Interest Litigation - Scope of PIL - Held: The 
concept of Public Interest Litigation is a phenomenon which 
8 
is evolved to rescue the poor and downtrodden - In the realm 
of PIL, the courls while protecting the larger public interest, 
should at the same time have to look at the effective way in 
which tiJ.e relief can be granted to the people whose rights are 
adversely affected - If the interest can be protected and 
controversy can be adjudicated by a mechanism created 
C under a parlicular statute, the parlies should be relegated to 
the appropriate forum instead of enterlaining the PIL - Scope 
of PIL is very limited in the matter of religious institutions -
Public Trusts and religious institutions are governed by 
parlicular legislation - It is not proper for the Courl to enterlain 
D such litigation under PIL - The forums cannot be misused by 
the rival groups in the guise of PIL - The judiciary should deal 
with the misuse of PIL with iron hands. · 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 is 
a self-contained Act. The Act has provided appropriate 
mechanism (a) to deal with the registration of a public 
trust; (b) making of entries in the register, their correction 
and inquiry, if any; (c) duties of auditor and inspection 
F of balance-sheet by any person interested in such public 
trust; (d) application by any person seeking directions 
from the Assistant Commissioner to appoint a new 
working trustee on the ground that the properties of the 
·trust are not being properly managed or administered; (e) 
G power of the Assistant Commissioner to ask for 
explanation of the working trustee about the 
administration of the trust; and (f) in case of 
mismanagement, power of the State Government to 
appoint a new committee of management etc: [Para 40] 
H [702-B-D] 
• 
• JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMIT! v. STATE OF 679 
RAJASTHAN 
1.2. In the Public Interest Litigation as well as in the A 
private civil litigations, the e.ntire issues revolved around 
the properties of Galta Peeth and the mode of succession 
to the Peeth. Already in respect of these issues, by the 
time, these writ petitions were filed, statutory enquiry 
application under Section 24 of the Act, were ·pending B 
befo.re the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the High 
Court felt that those issues could be effectively decided 
by the .Assistant Commissioner, and accordingly, 
permitted.the appellant to implead himself in the pending 
applications before the authority. [Para 42] [703-E-G] 
c 
1.3. In view of the statutory provisions which give 
extensive powers to the Assistant Com

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.