Mandir Shri Purnasar Hanumanji Pujari Trust And Anr. Through Its Secretary Mahavir S/O. Shri Hanuman Mal By Caste Bothraoswal Aged 43 Years vs. Murti Shri Punrasar Hanumanji

ITEM NO.30

COURT NO.3

SECTION XV

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6643-6644/2010

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-07-2009 in RP No. 158/2009 19-08-2009 in CRP No. 11/2009 19-08-2009 in CRP No. 158/2009 28-07-2009 in RP No. 158/2009 19-08-2009 in CRP No. 11/2009 19-08-2009 in CRP No. 158/2009 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur)

MANDIR SHRI PURNASAR HANUMANJI PUJARI TRUST AND ANR. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MAHAVIR S/O. SHRI HANUMAN MAL BY CASTE BOTHRAOSWAL AGED 43 YEARS & ANR.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MURTI SHRI PUNRASAR HANUMANJI & ORS.

Respondent(s)

(IA NO. 7/2016 - APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS (I.A. NOS. 7-8), IA NO. 3/2011 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 2/2010 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 5/2011 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 8/2016 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date: 08-01-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. V. Madhukar, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Adv. Mr. Bhagirath N. Patel, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR

Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR

• Mr. Arjun Sain, Adv.
• Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Adv.

Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Yash Singhania, Adv.

Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Vide order dated 22nd February, 2010, this Court had directed the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department to examine the request of the plaintiff in the suit under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 and pass appropriate order(s).

2. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order dated 24th January, 2011 in pursuant to the said direction(s).

3. We, therefore, find that the present proceeding has become infructous.

4. In that view of the matter, the special leave petition is disposed of.

5. However, we clarify that the order(s) passed by the Assistant Commissioner shall be subject to further proceedings, if any, as may be permissible in law.

6. We further clarify that if the State desires to take any steps for declaration of the trust as a public trust and pass consequential order(s), the State would be at liberty to do so as expeditiously as possible.

7. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

2