CW - 2234/2008 - Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Charitable Trust Evam Vishnoi Dharamshala vs. Birbal Ram & Ors. (2) CW-2235/08 - Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Charitable Trust Evam Vishnoi Dharamshala vs. Birbal Ram & Ors. Judgment dt.14.8.08 1/3 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2234/2008 Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Charitable Trust Evam Vishnoi Dharamshala. VS Birbal Ram & Ors. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2235/2008 Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Charitable Trust Evam Vishnoi Dharamshala. VS Birbal Ram & Ors. Date of order : 14th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi for Mr. Rakesh Arora for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Purohit for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.1.2008 whereby the authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act rejected the application of the defendant seeking to amend its reply to the application filed by the plaintiff for the claim. The nature of amendment sought in the present application by the defendant Charitable Trust is that the said Charitable Trust was not covered by the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. However, it is noticed from the order passed by this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.4384/2002 – Birbal Ram Vs. Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Trust & Ors. on 18th September, 2006 wherein it was held as under:- “In my view when the respondent trust got itself CW - 2234/2008 - Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Charitable Trust Evam Vishnoi Dharamshala vs. Birbal Ram & Ors. (2) CW-2235/08 - Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Charitable Trust Evam Vishnoi Dharamshala vs. Birbal Ram & Ors. Judgment dt.14.8.08 2/3 registered under the provisions of the Act of 1958, the argument that provisions of the Act of 1958 were not applicable to it was not available to it. Not only this, after getting registration, the respondent-trust periodically furnished return in the form performa 15 with regard to its working strength and staff and weekly holidays that were being allowed to them. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the learned Prescribed Authority for holding that the Act of 1958 and specially Section 28A would not apply to the respondent- trust cannot be sustained. The learned Prescribed Authority has cited the judgment of this Court in M/s Rajmata Badhela Ji Sudershana Kumari Janagarh, Bikaner Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 LIC 1877, but the same is distinguishable. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders of the learned Prescribed Authority dated 27.2.2002 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Prescribed Authority for its disposal afresh with a direction to decide the same within a period of six months from the date of submission of copy of this judgment before the said authority by either of the parties. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/ (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.” 3. Thus, the issue that whether the defendant trust was covered by the provisions of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act or not stood concluded by the aforesaid judgment CW - 2234/2008 - Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Charitable Trust Evam Vishnoi Dharamshala vs. Birbal Ram & Ors. (2) CW-2235/08 - Guru Jambheshwar Maharaj Charitable Trust Evam Vishnoi Dharamshala vs. Birbal Ram & Ors. Judgment dt.14.8.08 3/3 of this Court that so long as the said trust continues to hold the licence under the said Act, it is estopped from raising said plea and the provisions of Section 28A of the Act would apply to it. 4. In view of this, the amendment sought in the reply of the defendant to the same effect cannot be permitted. The authority concerned was justified in rejecting the said amendment by the impugned order dated 9.1.2008. The other amendments sought in the reply are also relating to the same main contention of the defendant. The main reply filed by the defendant is already on record and this Court has already directed the prescribed authority to decide the case expeditiously. 5. In view of this, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 9.1.2008. The writ petition is devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.60-61 babulal/-