STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus SAIJANLAL PANJAWAT & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 14-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
r 
E 
F 
1! 
' 
STATE OF RAJAS1HAN AND ORS. 
v. 
SAJJANLAL PANJAWAT & ORS. 
December 14, 1973 
HI 
rp JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S. N. DWIVEDI AND p K Gos 
' 
' 
• 
• 
WAMI, JJ.) 
JUJiwtlran Public Tmm -:fCI 1959-Ss. 17(3); 52(1 1 and SJ--if . 
Art. 25 and 26 of the Corumltllon. 
Yk>lod•o of 
The respon~cnts :tllcccd before the Hiih Court that certain rovisiooa of 
RajruthM Pubhc Tmsts Act, 1959 t<;>ntravcned thel! fundamental ~iihts &UMaD~ 
ullll<r 1\rL'- 25 nnd 26 of the Constl!utJon. . In the lint set 0_r appeals (C.A. Nos. 
1083 :llld 109~ of 1967) ~e rcspoodcnt.s, Ill Lbcl! wru petiuon, claiwed tlw the 
temple of Sbn Rik.babdeVJt (abo l.no>n1 as Kesbariyaaatbji temple) ,.. a 
Swewnb.:r Ja1n temple wln•h W.>s UndcT the owner.;lup and Dl:lrulgomeut ol Jain 
s.sh:ln :wd had been rccoarused as 'ucb 10 of!iCI:ll document.s as weU .., in tho 
lirman> issued by the .cl'litwhile S~11.e of McwM and Lbat the SLate usurped the 
tnllll.'lg<mcnt and apphed the provtstons of RaJasthan Public Trusts Act ao.1 there-
by contravened their fundamental rigbt.s. In Lbe second set or a~pealt (C A!J 
Nm. 1119 and 1087 of 1967) the Chairman of Lbe Trwt ComDllttce of Sbri 
Natodati Pansoath Tirath illleged lh.u the a<.lministntion and man:te•ment of 
tltt temple was beinll carried on by Lbc Tlll!t Committee on bellalt of Swe~mber 
J>.in temple and th~ interference in t.be manaeemont of tho temple and other 
religious institutions envisaged by the Act 11-a.s apiost Lbe IIS&&tS 111d cwtolll!, 
pnncipiCII and ~ncl3 of t.be Jain re)jgion. 
The Hi&h Court struck down a. 17(3) of the Act on Lbe pound thai under tho 
rul<a made under the Act the sum cltasaed as reci.stratioo fee COOS tu the co,.<>-
lidated lund and was thu' not " fee but a tax wllicb the SUtc Leaislatu.re ~ 
not 
competent to levy. Section '2(1 )(d) and (e) were suud down as .mvaltd as 
o. 53 bad not provi'ded for proper sale~ . oi leavm&. the admtn~>traOon of 
tbt property in the baQd, of t.be d~oolllln•uon. 8111 ~ 
.the mana~cment 
of the temple had ve.•ted in the State prior to the coo>urnuon. the cucAor 
Rilbabdevji wa.s held to have been covered by o.. '2tl)(a) or (c) of the 
ct. 
~on 53 was 'true I. down oo t.bc around th:l1 si~ ArL 26 contemplateo ubi:~ 
. ooly a denomination but n S<:ttion of the dcno1n1naUon. the !nmj ~.~ s~cUon 
•ru•t rcpr<11entina the same rd1gion n>~Y not n~rily be member.l 0 has the a&lllo 
or the denomination man:.ging the property even if sufch. ~~~''is U:~s tnnSlcmtl 
O..,..t a• thut of the public llu.o;t. tho ruanagc:ment o "' "' 
to the Commiltee of M•naacment. 
1 th 
· 
· 
h ld Lbat the ttmplc W3S a Swetall>-
bt n . e tint ~ct of appeals the Hi!)t Court eb S .t 
It directed the Statt to 
r htn ltmple which wa• be in~ rnan~~ed bv t e 
1• ,•·tl ·n the Act. 
<010\utute D Committee for ito manasemcnt as proVIu< 
1 
S.: . 
• · 
to be pn:scotcd under sub-s.(!) o! 
'Chon 17(3) provides t.bat nn nprllc•llon . 
not e>ctcdint 6ve !llpce5. 
thnt section "•hall be accompanied br "'ch fee. If ~nY. ib<\i" 
Rule IS of the 
OUid to be utili>ed for • ucb pumo><8. :L< rn-w b> ~~~ of tho trust property 
kutcs apecin •• the rat<s of {ce paya~le on u>tferent f 
bJll be cre.Jittd to the 
~~m•r:•tcd U>eroin, ond (urthcr pmd~cs th.;'\th) ':,r ~Act enacts tb•t tb~ P!!'" 
....._.,.,huated Fund of the State. Sc"tton ~.( 
blic trUSt wllicb ves!J 111 ,.o 
Slstotu COntained in Chapkr X stwll npply to evef'j p~ by tho State Govenun<at 
1 
1~lc: G•h·ernmenL (cl. u) or wh1"h I• n~1n>!"'!,l~ d,urt of Wards (d. d); ~d 
of· j!: or which is u11da .U1c sllpc;rinten.tencco.nd ru~<S or 1)10te (ct. e). 
·~t 
33 " 11<~ the ~ttuss •nnual ta.omc " ten tbOII_' 
1 shall v"t in a epmm~)' ro-
'f CrQ"d<e lh•t the nt•n•temenl of a ~u~hc tru5 
menl 
Sub .. ecnon ( 
P'a11 
·' •ltllse 
b 
. 
h 
h 
't·tte Go,crn 
. 
f M""•JeOl:DI •h 
vid 
ltlent to e con,ututed Y t c .;, t.b Committee o 
- . 
tb.e woe 
be c. that the Cb:utm3Jl knd Members 
e bli- !ttJSC. represcnu~sttrcsted in 
rei' 8PPDinted !rom amongst (a) trustees ofrjedS• and (b) pc11ons /'nomination 
~~ton o~ persuasion und having tho '~ of or beloogin8 to tbe • 
public trusts or in the endowment• there 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1974] 2 s.c.R. 
for the purpose of whicb or for the benefit of whom ~e trust was founded in 
accordance with the aeneral wishes of the persons so Interested so far as such 
wishes can be ascertained in the prescribed manner. 
Allowinc th.e appeals, 
HELD: Section 17(3) cannot be held to be invalid and 11l1ra yir~s t

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