9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1101 - SC - Indian LawsAvailing simultaneous alternative remedy while filing an appeal - property dispute - administration of the temple - Held that - The appellant having availed the alternative remedy available under the Act, however, approached this Court by way of these Civil Appeals. In our opinion, the appellant cannot be permitted to avail two remedies simultaneously, and such conduct of the appellant is abuse of process of Court. It is no doubt settled law that mere availability of alternative remedy cannot be a ground to reject the relief in a Public Interest Litigation, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, namely the history of the case, right from 15th century, the long standing litigation, the voluminous record, etc. involving disputed questions of facts and law, we are of the considered opinion that adjudication of such disputes is not possible in a Public Interest Litigation, and the remedy is to get such disputes adjudicated by a fact finding authority as enumerated under the Act, which remedy is not only alternative, but also effective, because the parties can put a quietus to the litigation once for all. Hence, in view of our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court, by the impugned order, was justified in relegating the parties to the Assistant Commissioner, before whom the applications are pending adjudication. The appellant having got impleaded himself in the applications before the Assistant Commissioner and having invited an order from the High Court, now cannot be permitted to question the said order of the High Court.
Issues Involved
1. Whether the High Court was right in relegating the parties to the Assistant Commissioner without going into the merits and legal issues involved in the case? 2. Whether the Assistant Commissioner has the authority and jurisdiction under the Act to deal with the complicated issues involved in the matter? 3. Whether the appellant herein is aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 6607 of 2004, wherein the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous? Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Relegation to the Assistant Commissioner The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in directing the parties to the Assistant Commissioner without addressing the merits and legal issues of the case. The High Court had determined that the issues regarding the properties of Galta Peeth and the mode of succession were already pending before the Assistant Commissioner in statutory enquiry applications under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The High Court felt these issues could be effectively decided by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appellant to participate in the pending applications. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision, noting that the Act provides extensive powers to the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, including the power of a civil court, to decide issues pertaining to public trusts. The Court emphasized that the appellant had already availed the alternative remedy under the Act and could not pursue two remedies simultaneously, deeming such conduct an abuse of process. Issue 2: Authority and Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes involved. The Court reviewed the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which is a self-contained Act providing a comprehensive mechanism for dealing with public trust issues. The Act empowers the Assistant Commissioner to conduct inquiries, make entries in the register, and address issues of mismanagement and succession. The Court concluded that the Assistant Commissioner had the necessary authority and jurisdiction under the Act to handle the complicated issues in question. The Court highlighted that the appellant had already participated in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and had filed appeals against the orders, reinforcing the appropriateness of the High Court's decision to refer the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. Issue 3: Aggrievement by Dismissal of Writ Petition (C) No. 6607 of 2004 The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant was aggrieved by the High Court's dismissal of Writ Petition (C) No. 6607 of 2004 as infructuous. The appellant argued that the High Court should have decided the issue on merits instead of dismissing it based on the expiration of the Committee's term. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed by the father of Respondent No. 4 and that the appellant had not objected to the withdrawal of the writ petition when the order was passed. The Court found that the appellant's objection was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and was not substantiated by participation in the earlier proceedings. The Court also observed that the appointment of a Committee of Management under Section 53 of the Act was at the discretion of the State Government, and the amended Section 53 provided the Government with the flexibility to appoint or not appoint a Committee. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition was valid and did not warrant interference. Conclusion The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to refer the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, affirming that the Assistant Commissioner had the necessary jurisdiction and authority under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The Court also found that the appellant's objections regarding the dismissal of Writ Petition (C) No. 6607 of 2004 were unsubstantiated and that the High Court's order was appropriate. The appeals were dismissed, and the Court emphasized the limited scope of Public Interest Litigation in matters involving religious institutions, cautioning against its misuse.
|
