Case: Deewan Singh  Vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi

appointed under Section 7 of the Act would be an agency of the State, the same would lead to an absurdity or anomaly. It is a well-known principle of law that where literal interpretation shall give rise to an anomaly or absurdity, the same should be avoided. [See Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dixit, (2005) 5 SCC 598 and M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala,(2005) 11 SCC 45 ] 43. It is also well-settled that the entire statute must be first read as a whole then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. [See Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 424 ] The relevant provisions of the statute must, thus, be read harmoniously. [See Bombay Dyeing (supra) and Secretary, Department of Excise & Commercial Taxes and Others v. Sun Bright Marketing (P) Ltd., Chhattisgarh and Another [(2004) 3 SCC 185] . It would, therefore, not be possible to give literal interpretation to Section 77 of the Act. 44. Different provisions contained in different Chapters of the Act must, as far as possible, receive harmonious construction. With a view to give harmonious construction, the effect of an exemption clause must be borne in mind. It has not been denied or disputed that keeping in view the different clauses contained in Section 52 of the Act, public trusts which had vested in the State would come within the purview of the Chapter X. Once it is held that all those trusts would also go out of the statute, the provisions of Chapter X would become otiose in a large number of cases. Application of such principle of interpretation is not permissible. 45. It is, therefore, incumbent for us to take recourse to harmonious construction. If principle of harmonious construction is applied, in a case of this nature, particularly, when the State itself has acted upon the directions of the court and had issued notifications in terms of Section 52 of the Act, the State cannot now be permitted to contend that Chapter X shall not apply. It could not approbate and reprobate at the same time. 46. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. The State not only in the earlier round of litigation but also before the High Court had taken a categorical stand that it had all along been ready and willing to act in terms of the provisions of Chapter X of the Act and appoint a Committee; it cannot take a different stand now. 47. In Karamshi Jethabhai Somayya v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) [AIR 1964 SC 1714 ], this Court stated the law, thus: Apart from the fact that the appellant asked for the production of all the relevant documents, the Government, being the defendant in this case, should have produced the documents relevant to the question raised. While it is the duty of a private party to a litigation to place all the relevant matters before the Court, a higher responsibility rests upon the Government not to withhold such documents from the court... 48. In Cooke v. Rickman [(1911) 2 KB 1125] , it was held that the rule of estoppel could not be restricted to a matter in issue, stating : The rule laid down in Hawlett v. Tarte (10 C.B. (N.S.) 813 - was that if the defendant in a second action attempts to put on the, record a plea which is inconsistent with any traversable allegation in a former action between the same parties there is an estoppel 49. [See also Humphries v. Humphries 1910 (2) KB 531] 50. In Jai Narain Parasrampura (Dead) and Others v. Pushpa Devi Saraf and Others [(2006) 7 SCC 756] , this Court held : While applying the procedural law like principle of estoppel or acquiescence, the court would be concerned with the conduct of a party for determination as to whether he can be permitted to take a different stand in a subsequent proceeding, unless there exists a statutory interdict. 51. It was further held : The doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence was not restricted to cases where the representor was aware both of what his strict rights were and that the representee was acting on the belief that those rights would not be enforced against him. Instead, the court was required to ascertain whether in the particular circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he had allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment. Accordingly, the principle would apply if at the time the expectation was encouraged. 52. The stand of the State in the earlier round of ligitation was that the temple in question was a Hindu temple. This Court categorically opined that it is a Jain temple. The principles of res judicata, thus, would come into play. The State, therefore, cannot still contend that the temple in question is a Hindu temple. Before us, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Civil Appeal No. 4086-4089 of 2002 have raised a contention that it is a Hindu temple but we cannot permit the State or the said respondents to raise such a contention before us. We are bound by the earlier judgment. The issue cannot be permitted to be reopened nor we have any jurisdiction in these matters to do so. 53. We must, however, observe that the question as to whether the temple in question is Swetambers or Digambers does not fall for our consideration. Both parties have staked their own claims. It is for the State to act in terms of the statute. While doing so, it indisputably would have to give effect to the directions issued by the High Court. 54. While implementing the said directions, the incidental or ancillary questions which may arise for consideration before the State Government must also be determined in accordance with law. 55. For the reasons aforementioned, we

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The State Government, in our opinion, does not have any discretionary jurisdiction to exercise in the matter of appointment of a committee of management. It is imperative in nature. The expression shall used in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 53 of the Act indicates that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used by the legislature require that a committee of management must be constituted. The expression shall ordinarily implies the imperative character of the lawEven if the expression shall is read as may although there does not exist any reason therefor, the statute provides for a power coupled with a duty. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes that where discretion is conferred upon a public authority coupled with discretion, the word may which denotes discretion, should be construed to mean a command.