TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ TRIYAMBAK LAL GOSWAMI SHN CILANSHYAMLAIJI TILKAYAT SHRI GOWINDLAIJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of seven cross-appeals arises from three writ petitions filed in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in which the validity of the Nathdwara Temple Act 1959, (No. XIII of 1959) thereinafter called the Act) has been challenged. The principal writ petition was Writ Petition No. 90 of 1959; it was filed by the present Tilkayat Govindlalji (hereinafter called the Tilkayat) on 28/02/1959. That petition challenged the validity of the Nathdwara Ordinance 1959 (No. II of 1959) which had been issued on 6/02/1959. Subsequently this Ordinance was repealed by the Act which, after receiving the assent of the President, came into force on 28/03/1959. Thereafter, the Tilkayat was allowed to amend his petition and after its amendment, the petition challenged the vires of the Act the provisions of which are identical with the provisions of its predecessor Ordinance. Along with this petition, Writ Petition No. 310 of 1959 was filed on 17/08/1959 by ten petitioners who purported to act on behalf of the followers of the Pushtimaragiya Vaishnava Sampraday. This Petition attacked the validity of the Act on behalf of the Denomination of the followers of Vallabha. On 3/11/1960, the third writ Petition (No. 421 of 1960) was filed on behalf of Goswami Shri Ghanshyamlalji who, as a direct descendant of Vallabha, set up an interest in himself in regard to the Nathdwara Temple, and as a person having interest in the said Temple, he challenged the validity of the Act. These three petitions were heard together by the High Court and have been dealt with by a common judgment. In substance, the High Court has upheld the validity of the Act, but it has struck down as ultra vires a part of the definition of 'temple' in S. 2 (viii) ; a part of S. 16 which refers to the affairs of the temple; S. 28 sub-sees. (2) and (3) ; Sec. 30 (2) (a) ; Sections 36 and 37. The petitioners as well as the State of Rajasthan felt aggrieved by this decision and that has given rise to the present cross-appeals. The Tilkayat has filed Appeal No. 652 of 1962, whereas the State has filed appeals Nos. 653 and 757 of 1960. These appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 90 of 1959. The Denomination has filed appeal No. 654 of 1962, whereas the State has field Appeals Nos. 655 and 758 of 1962. These appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 310 of 1959. Ghanshyamlalji whose Writ Petition No. 421 of 1960 has been dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be tried under Article 226 of the Constitution, has preferred Appeal No. 656 of 1962. Since Ghanshyamlalji's petition has been dismissed in liming on the ground just indicated, it was unnecessary for the State to prefer any cross-appeal. Besides these seven appeals, in the present group has been included Writ Petition No. 74 of 1962 filed by the Tilkayat in this Court under Article 32. By the said writ petition the Tilkayat has challenged the vires of the Act on some additional grounds. That is how the principal point which arises for our decision in this group is in regard to the Constitutional validity of the Act.

(2.) At this stage, it is relevant to indicate broadly the contentions raised by the parties before the High Court and the conclusions of the High Court on the points in controversy. The Tilkayat contended that the idol of Shri Shrinathji in the Nathdwara Temple and all the property pertaining to it were his private properties and as such, the State Legislature was not competent to pass the Act. In the alternative, it was urged that even if the Nathdwara Temple is held to be a public temple and the Tilkayat the Mahant or Shebait in charge of it as such Mahant or Shebait he had a beneficial interest in the office of the high priest as well as the properties of the temple and it is on that footing that the validity of the Act was challenged under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Incidentally the argument for the Tilkayat was that the idols of Shri Navnit Priyaji and Shri Madan Mohanlalji were his private idols and the property, pertaining to them was in any case not the property in which the public could be said to be interested. The Denomination substantially supported the Tilkayat's case. In addition, it urged that if the temple was held to be a public temple, then the Act would be invalid because it contravened the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Denomination under Article 25 (1) and Article 26 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. Ghanshyamlalji pleaded title in himself and challenged the validity of the Act on the ground that it contravened his rights under Article 19 (1) (f).

(3.) On the other hand, the State of Rajasthan urged that the Nathdwara Temple was a public temple and the Tilkayat was no more and no better than its manager. As such, he had no substantial beneficial interest in the property of the temple. The contention that the Tilkayat's fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (f) have been contravened by the Act was denied; and the plea of the Denomination that the fundamental rights guaranteed to it under Arts. 25 (1) and 26 (b) and (c) had been infringed was also disputed. It was urged that the law was perfectly valid and did no more than regulate the administration of the property of the temple as contemplated by Article 26 (d) of the Constitution. The Tilkayat's claim that the two idols of Navnit Priyaji and Madan Mohanlalji were his private idols was also challenged. Against Ghanshyamlalji's petition, it was urged that it raised several disputed questions of fact which could not be appropriately tried in proceedings under Article 226.