IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4940/2010 Shri Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha Versus. The Assistant Commissioner (First), Devasthan Department, Jaipur & anr. DATE OF ORDER : 13/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI ***
Mr. Neeraj K.Tiwari, for petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kr.Sharma for respondent No. 2
The contesting respondent No.2 had already entered into caveat and copy of writ petition had been supplied to him.
After hearing counsel for the parties, the matter is finally disposed of at the stage of admission.
The respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 alleging that the Manager of the Trust has executed a sale deed of the trust properties situated at Kalanor (Haryana). The petitioner filed its reply and denied such allegations but after the evidence of respondent No.2 was completed, the petitioner initially submitted affidavits of Shri Ashok Swami (DW-1) who was cross-examined but the affidavits of two other witnesses were filed on 12/03/2010 and the matter was fixed for their cross examination On 18/03/2010. However, on 18/03/2010 they could not be cross-examined as there was a local holiday in second half and on the next date of hearing i.e. 22/03/2010 the petitioner for the personal reasons was unable to produce its witnesses and the next date was fixed as 30/03/2010 but it appears that on that late, the counsel for petitioner was slightly date and reached after 2.45 pm. Taking note thereof, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and immediately thereafter an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for recalling the order but the same was also rejected and the matter was posted for hearing. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dt. 30/03/2010 by which its evidence has been closed, has filed the present writ petition.
Counsel for petitioner submits that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner and only on 22/03/2010 the witnesses could not be produced and the authority cannot be said to be justified for closing the evidence of the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, while supporting the order passed by the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner, submits that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and in such circumstances, the evidence has rightly been closed under order impugned dt. 30/03/2010.
It has also been informed by counsel for petitioner that the authority has heard the matter it is listed today for pronouncement of judgment. Counsel submits that if the judgment is pronounced today, what will certainly cause prejudice to the petitioner.
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, after the affidavits were submitted on 12/03/2010 of two witnesses next date was fixed as 18/03/2010 but because of local festival it was declared a holiday in the second half and the only opportunity afforded to the petitioner was 22/03/2010 and on the next date of hearing i.e. 30/03/2010 the authority closed the evidence of the petitioner, which, in the facts of the instant case, cannot be said to be a reasonable opportunity being afforded to the petitioner and denial thereof is certainly in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 30/03/2010 whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed is set aside and the respondent No.1 is directed to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to record its evidence and for cross examining by the respondents and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner may produce its witnesses before the respondent No.1-authority on 27/04/2010 for their evidence. No costs.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Raghu/p.4/ 4940-CW-2010-final.doc