DEEWAN SINGH AND ORS. versus RAJENDRA PD. ARDEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 04-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.-
A 
DEEW AN SINGH AND ORS. 
>< 
v. 
RAJENDRA PD. ARDEVI AND ORS. 
JANUARY 4,2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Public Trusts: 
... 
!': 
Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959-Chapter X-Sections 52 & 53-
c State Government obligated to constitute a Committee of management of 
a public trust to which Chapter X of the Act applies-Constitution of 
such a Committee of management does not fall within discretionary 
jurisdiction of the State Government-Expression "shall" used in 
sub-sectionS (1) and (2) of s.53 implies imperative character of law-
D 
Rajasthan Public Trusts Rules, 1962-Rule 36-lnterpretation of Statutes-
Harmonious construction. 
The temple in question in the present appeals is situated in Rajasthan. 
Management of the temple is in issue. In an earlier round of litigation, this 
Court had held that the temple in question is a Jain temple and not a Hindu 
E 
Temple and that the management of the temple is vested in the State of 
Rajasthan. 
t-
In the present round oflitigation, the Single Judge of the High Court 
}-
held that it is imperative on the part of the State Government to issue an 
F 
appropriate notification constituting a Committee of management in respect 
of the temple in question. The Division Bench however held that some 
A 
element of discretion exists i11 the State Government. It made certain 
modifications in regard to Constitution of Committee leaving the matter at 
the discretion of the State Government opining Sections 52 and 53 of the 
/ 
Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 confers such discretion to it. 
)"-9 
G 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeals is 
whether the State Government is obligated to constitute a committee of 
. --
management of a public trust to which Chapter X of the Act applies or 
,.. 
whether the constitution of such a committee of management falls within 
H 
the discretionary jurisdiction of the State Government. 
30 
DEEW AN SINGH v. RAJENDRAPD. ARDEVI 
31 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The modifications made by the Division Bench of the High 
Court are not sustainable. They are set aside accordingly. The judgment 
of the Single Judge is upheld. (Para 55) (52-C-D) 
2. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 53 of the Act would 
show that it contemplates vesting of public trust in the State Government. 
Different dates may be appointed for different purposes. Once Chapter X 
is found to be applicable, subject to fixation of an appointed date, the 
management vests in a committee. Such a committee of management is to 
A 
B 
be constituted by the State Government in the manner provided therein. 
C 
The said provision contains a non-obstante clause and, therefore, the same 
would prevail over anything contained in any provision of the Act or in any 
law, custom or usage in force. [Para 30) [45-A-B] 
State of Rajasthan and Others v. Shri Sajjanlal Panjawat and Others, 
D 
[1974) 1 sec 500, referred to. 
3.1. The State Government does not have any discretionary jurisdiction 
to exercise in the matter of appointment of a committee of management. It 
is imperative in nature. The expression "shall" used in Sub-sections (1) 
and (2) of Section 53 of the Act indicates that the natural and ordinary 
E 
meaning of the words used by the legislature require that a committee of 
management must be constituted. The expression "shall" ordinarily 
implies the imperative character of the law. [Para 31) [45-C-D] 
3.2. Even if the expression "shall" is read as "may" although there 
does not exist any reason therefor, the statute provides for a power coupled 
with a duty. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes that 
where power is conferred upon a public authority coupled with discretion, 
the word "may" which denotes discretion, should be construed to mean a 
command. (Para 32) (45-D-E] 
Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, [1952) SCR 
135; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh, (1964] 2 SCR 197; State 
(Delhi Admn.) v. l.K. Nangia and Another (1980) 1 SCC 258 and NC. 
Dhoundial v. Union of India, [2004) 2 SCC 579, referred to. 
F 
G 
H 
..... 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.C.R. 
... 
; 
A 
4.1. Section 77 of the Act provides for exemption from the application 
of the provisions of the Act. An exemption provision, as is well-known, must 
-~ __,, 
be strictly construed. Sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the Act exempts only 
those trusts which are administered by any agency under t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.