1973 Supreme(SC) 423

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S.N. DWIVEDI AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan and others, Appellants
Versus
Sajjanlal Panjawat and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1083, 1092 1087, 1119 and 1647 of 1967, D/- 14-12-1973.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 133 (1) (a), (c), 14, l9, 25, 26, 31, 26 (b), (d) and 25 (1) - Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 - Section 17 (3), 52 (1) (d) and (e), 52 (i) (a) or (c) , 53 , 2 (11) , 52 , 30, 31, 38 to 4, 32 to 36 , 37 to 46 , 53 (5) - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Section 76 (1) - Private Temples - Public Religious Trusts - Ownership and Management of Jain Shasan - Whether temples were private temples or public religious trusts does not seem to have been urged - Whether petitioners/ respondents who claim to represent Swetamber Jain sect can challenge right of State - Whether provisions of Act in any way infringe their fundamental rights to manage their own affairs in matters of religion - Whether any of provisions of Act offend their fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 25, 26 and 27 of Constitution - Whether it is a Swetamber Jain temple or a Digamber Jain temple - Whether temple is a Swetamber Jain temple or a Digamber Jain temple as contended by interveners does not arise for decision - Whether Keshariyanathji temple is a Swetamber Jain temple - Whether temple is a Jain temple, or as alleged by State a Hindu temple - Whether management of temple had been taken over prior to Constitution by erstwhile Udaipur State - Whether that management continued to be vested even after Constitution in its successor - Whether respondents fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts.25 and-26 are affected – Whether Swetamber or Digamber, had lost right before Constitution - Whether this is a valid claim or not, and whether impugned provisions of Act contravene any of tenets of Jain religion - Whether any of them in fringe right of respondents guaranteed under Art. 26 of Constitution - Whether this is so or not cannot be determined merely on allegations in petition - Whether provisions of subs-sec. (5) of S. 53 empower Government to take away from a religious denomination - Whether such vesting would contravene fundamental rights guaranteed under cls. (b) and (d) of Art. 26 - Whether provisions of sub-e. (1) read with sub-ss. (4) and (5) of S. 53 authorise vesting of administration of a public religious trust - Whether that levy was a tax or a fee one of material facts taken into consideration - Whether it was fee or tax did not matter - Whether it was a compulsory levy - Whether State was making a profit out of administration of civil justice - Whether amounts so collected from those fees were spent on administration of civil justice - Whether impugned fees were court-fees or taxes on litigants or litigation - Whether Section 17 (3) can be declared to be invalid on account of Rule 18 requiring fee to be deposited in State Consolidated Fund - Whether two temples which State contended were public trusts - Whether two temples were his private property – Held, All collections went to Consolidated Fund of State and all expenses had to be met not out of those collections but out of general revenues by a proper method of appropriation as was done in case of other Government expenses - Though this was so it was nonetheless observed That in itself might not be conclusive - But as there was total absence of any correlation between expenses incurred by Government and amount railed by contribution under provision of S. 76, it was observed that theory of a return or counter- payment or quid pro quo could not have any possible application to that case - Fee is a sort of contribution levied on public trusts towards meeting expenses incurred by State Government in rendering services to public trusts through agency of Devasthan Department and that according to budget provisions for year expenditure on Devasthan Department was Rs. 2,76,715/- as against income of only Rupees 3,000/for same year from registration fee - This averment in reply of Commissioner. Devasthan Department was not controverted by petitioners either by a reply thereto or by any other material produced by them - In these circumstances, mere fact that She amount was paid under R. 18 into Consolidation Fund is by itself not sufficient to hold that levy under Section 17 (3) of Act is tax the income by way of fees is far below expenditure incurred on Devasthan Department, levy would be a fee - In this view, Section 17 (3) cannot be held to be invalid and ultra vires powers of State Legislature – Court express no opinion on question whether Section 17 (3) can be declared to be invalid on account of Rule 18 requiring fee to be deposited in State Consolidated Fund - Act has been challenged on grounds similar to these in the other appeals and no separate arguments were addressed, except those advanced by respondents Advocate in other appears this appeal also will be decided accordingly - Appropriate authority under Act will however decide this question before applying Act to these temples - In this appeal as also in appeals decision of High Court that S. 17 (3) and S. 52 (1) (d) and (e) are void and unconstitutional is also set aside - Appeals dismissed.