:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2002 1. Shri Ramdas Narayan Naik Gaonker, aged 49 years, Resident of Gaonkar Wada, H.No.150, Marcel, Khandola Goa. 2. Shri Shyam Sagun Naik Gaonker, aged 30 years, son of Sagun Balchandra Naik Gaonkar, resident of H.No.399, Taleigao, Pashre Bhat. 3. Shri Jitendra Kanta Naik Gaonker, age 31 years, son of Kanta Dattaram Naik Gaonkar, resident of H.No.141, Marcel, Khandola Goa. 4. Shri Laxman Nagesh Naik Gaonkar, age 26 years, son of Nagesh Keshav Naik Gaonkar, resident of H.No.273, Ganapati Wada, Marcel, Khandola Goa. ... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. The Mamlatdar & Administrator of Devasthan's, of Taluka of Ponda with office at Ponda Goa. 2. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Panaji Goa. 3. Collector of North Goa, with office at Panaji Goa. 4. Shantadurga Devasthana at its affiliates of Candola, in Ponda Taluka, through its attorney :2: resident of Khandola. 5. Pratap Kustem Haldonker, President, resident of H.No.P-199, Haldonwada, Marcel, Khandola Goa. 6. Keshav Bhikaro Gaudo, Treasurer, resident of H.No.K-175, Haldonwada, Marcel, Khandola Goa. 7. Goga Ganesh Jalmi, Atrorney, resident of H.No.G-122/2, Jalmi wada, Marcel, Khandola Goa. 8. Nunu Chandrakant Naik, H.No. Clerk ( Escrivao ), resident of Ganapati Wada, Marcel, Khandola Goa. ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. Agha, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. P. Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. M. Sonak, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 21 st SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per D. G. KARNIK, J ) By this petition, the petitioners challenges the circular dated 27th July, 1971 ( copy of which is at Exhibit B to the petition ) as violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India and prays for quashing of the :3: said circular as null and void. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of Articles 5, 8 and 9 and part of bye-laws nos. 4 to 9 of the draft bye-laws of Shantadurga Devasthan published in the Official Gazette of Government of Goa dated 4th April, 1991 as null and void. 2. It is a common ground between the parties that the circular dated 27th July, 1971 ( at Exhibit B ) has been issued by the Government in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon it under the Devasthan Regulations governing Hindu temples ( Devasthan ) in the State of Goa. The Devasthan Regulations were in force in the State of Goa since the Portuguese regime and still continue to be in force. Articles 1 and 2 of Devasthan Regulations read as follows :- “Article 1 – The Hindu religious associations, known as bodies of the members ( mazanias ) of Devasthans, shall be subject to the provisions under this Regulation and under the respective bye- laws legally approved. Article 2 – A body of members ( mazania ) shall be the association of components of a Hindu temple, constituted according to the rite of their religion, for the exercise of cult. Para 1 – Members ( mazanes ) shall be those who, according to the respective bye-laws, enjoy this quality, in which their male descendants in direct line and those adopted according to the respective Code of usages :4: and customs shall succeed. Para 2 – The quality of member ( mazane ) by hereditary right and birth-right shall be intransmissible.” 3. A bare perusal of the Articles 1 and 2 of the Devasthan Regulations shows that they apply only to Hindu religion associations. The Devasthan Regulations do not apply to the private temples belonging to and managed by private individuals. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State also submitted that the Devasthan Regulations do not apply to the private temples belonging to the private individuals i.e. private temples in the home and houses of the individual person. The Devasthan Regulations apply only to the Hindu religion associations. 4. According to the petitioners, they are mahajans i.e. members of Shantadurga Devasthan, which according to them is a private temple constituted by five families and it is a private temple of the said five families. The petitioners claim that they are aggrieved by the impugned circular and draft bye-laws and they are likely to be affected because all the members of the public can be admitted as members ( mahajans or mazanias ) of the Shantadurga Devasthan and that would infringe their right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The learned Advocate General disputes the contention of the petitioners that the Shantadurga Devasthan is a private temple and according to him the Shantadurga Devasthan is a temple of Hindu religion association and consequently the :5: Devasthan Regulations are applicable to it. The question whether the Shantadurga Devasthan is a private temple or a Hindu religious association is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in a writ petition. A writ Court does not ordinarily embark upon an equity into disputed questions of fact which are required to be decided on evidence and leaves the disputed issues to be decided by a suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would not be possible to decide the disputed issues of fact only on the basis of the affidavit in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioners are relegated to the remedy of a suit wherein they would be required to establish that the Shantadurga Devasthan is a private temple belonging to the five families and not Hindu religion association. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. D. G. KARNIK, J F.M. REIS, J at*