SHANKARLAL PURSHOTTAM GOR Vs. DAKOR TEMPLE COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this application arises have been fully stated in this Court's judgment of April 11, 1919, in Appeal No. 223 of 1915, and need not be re-stated. That judgment, and the consequential one of September 22, 1919, have been set aside under the judgment of their Lordships in Privy Council in Appeal No. 95 of 1923. In that judgment it is said : "The High Court at Bombay had power conferred upon it by Clause 20 of the scheme confirmed by His Majesty's Order in Council upon an application made to it with that object to alter, modify or add to the rules sanctioned by the District Judge, but it had no other power, and that power it did not exercise; it may, however, still be exercised upon application properly made to it." Accordingly the present application has been made by twelve Gors "for themselves and on behalf of the other Tarwadi Mewada Gors, residing at Dakore." Their main contention is that the rules framed by the Temple Committee and sanctioned by the District Judge are illegal and ultra vires, so far as they impose fixed fees in payment for passes, whether on the Gors or the general public entitled to worship in the temple at Dakore. They also urge that some of the rules are objectionable, so far as they impose on the Gors the necessity of obtaining a free pass for entering the Nij Mandir and ascending the Sinhasan for the purpose of performing worship and other religious rites. Detailed modifications of certain rules are proposed.

(2.) We have heard all the parties concerned in the matter. The Advocate-General supports the contention that no fees should be charged, but is in favour of free passes being required for entry to the Niz Mandir and ascending the Sinhasan. This view is also taken by Opponent No. 3, the representative of the Tambekar family who have a special position with reference to this temple. On the other hand, the Temple Committee and the representatives of the Sevaks oppose the modification of the rules.

(3.) Before considering the questions that arise upon their merits, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary objection that was raised by Sir Chimanlal Setalvad for the Sevaks. He contends that under Clause 20 of the scheme it is not competent to this Court to interfere with the rules framed by the Temple Committee and sanctioned by the District Judge; and that the powers of this Court under that clause are confined to an alteration of the provisions of the scheme itself.