IMPORTANT POINT
The interest of the public is paramount in any religious public trust.

JUDGMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J. —

These are three appeals against the common judgment dated 5th of August, 2002 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal Nos. 1252 of 1996, 1325 of 1996 and 1322 of 1996 and relate to the ancient Shiva temple situated at Trambakeshwar near Nashik (for short ‘the temple’).

2. The facts very briefly are that a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) was registered in respect of the temple in 1952 and one Jogalekar was appointed as its sole trustee with hereditary succession. In 1965, some of the devotees of the temple filed an application under Section 50A(1) of the Act for settlement of a scheme for management of the trust. In 1967, a scheme for management of the trust was framed but the same was challenged by the sole trustee Jogalekar under Section 72 of the Act before the District Judge, Nashik. The District Judge, Nashik amended the scheme but the amendment was not to the liking of the sole trustee Jogalekar and Jogalekar resigned and none of his legal heirs were willing to be the trustee of the trust. In 1977, the Charity Commissioner modified the scheme and appointed one Gokhale as interim sole trustee and directed an inspection. After inspection, the Deputy Charity Commissioner submitted the inspection report narrating the entire history and activities of the temple. The inspection report gave the details of the traditional role played by Tungars, Purohits and Pujaris in the temple for hundreds of years. The Charity Commissioner considered the report and by order dated 30.11.1981 modified the scheme and appointed 5 trustees, one from the Tungars, one from the Purohits and remaining 3 to be appointed by the Charity Commissioner.

3. The sole trustee Gokhale, however, challenged the order dated 30.11.1981 of the Charity Commissioner under Section 72 of the Act before the District Judge, Nashik. After hearing the parties the 5th Additional District Judge, Nashik in his order dated 28.12.1993, held that Tungars get offerings made by the devotees in the plate situated before the idol and Purohits earn income from the devotees who visit the temple and therefore they have financial interest in the offerings and the devotees and their respective participation in the management of the trust is likely to be in conflict with the interest of the trust. The Additional District Judge held that the apprehension of the appellant before him that Tungars and Purohits, if appointed as trustees, are bound to look after their well being first and divert the attention of the devotees was well-founded and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of one of the Tungars and one of the Purohits as trustees. The Additional District Judge directed that instead a Civil Judge, Senior Division, be nominated by the District Judge, Nashik and the Chief Officer of Trambakeshwar Municipality or in his absence the next subordinate be appointed as Ex-officio trustee and that the Civil Judge, Senior Division, so appointed by the District Judge, Nashik shall be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Nashik, the President, Purohit Sangh filed First Appeal No.1252 of 1996, the Tungars filed First Appeal No.1322 of 1996 and the Pujaris represented by Krushnaji Ramchandra Ruikar and three others filed First Appeal No.1325 of 1996. After hearing the parties, the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2002 has held that the Tungars, Purohits as well as Pujaris should get representation in the trust and allowed the appeal in part and modified the composition of the trust. The High Court held in the impugned order that the trust will have a maximum of 7 members namely, one nominee of the District Judge who would be the Ex-officio Trustee and Chairman of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer of the Trimbakeshwar Municipal Council who would be the Ex-officio Trustee and in his absence, his immediate subordinate nomin