1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 806 of 2008 STATE & ORS. V/S SMT. LALI & ANR Mr. AS RATHORE DY.GA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RAJAT DAVE, for the respondent Date of Order : 23.10.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Against this very impugned order appeal has been filed by the Trust to whom the management of the temple was handed over being S.A.W. No. 755/2008 which has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dt. 26.8.2008. It has clearly been noticed in that judgment that introduction of Roop Singh the President, and Roop Singh s/o Oak Singh was wholly uncalled for, and the substantial objection was about introduction of these two persons Roop Singh on the ground that these are the persons who want to grab the temple, and the offerings received at the temple. The objections made by Bhatnagar and Gameti families about introduction of these persons having not been considered by the Devasthan Commissioner has been taken seriously in the said judgment. 2 It is a different story that it is not shown as to who created the trust, and how it came into existence. Merely because the State floats a policy, and finding some temple to be receiving substantial income, few busy body in the locality, or area, or city, or state take it into their head to grab the temple, and dispossess the persons of their right of offering being received, by purportedly creating a trust, and getting it registered, can hardly allow them to succeed. It is significant to note that the alleged trust had filed application under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, wherein it has also not been disclosed as to how this so called trust is related with the origin, and management of the temple, and how was it created. Thus, apart from the fact that the controversy stands concluded by the judgment dt. 26.8.2008, it is not open to us to entertain another appeal against same judgment, even otherwise we are at one with the reasonings given by the Division Bench in the judgment dt. 26.8.2008. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/