Case: Deewan Singh  Vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi

Management of a temple known as Shri Rikhabdevji situated in the village Dhulev near 40 miles away from Udaipur in Rajasthan is involved in these appeal which arise out of judgments and orders dated 18.09.1997 and 06.02.2002 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan.Indisputably, the matter came up for consideration on an earlier occasion before this Court in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Shri Sajjanlal Panjawat and Others since reported in [(1974) 1 SCC 500] . It is furthermore not in dispute that at one point of time the management of the said temple was taken over by the Maharana of Mewar. We need not go into the history of the said temple, as the same has been noticed by this Court in the earlier round of litigations,. The properties of the said temple vested in the State of Rajasthan as the State of Mewar merged with other princely States forming the United State of Rajasthan on 18.04.1948. Various directions were issued by the Government of Rajasthan in relation to the management of the said temple from time to time.The legislature of the State of Rajasthan enacted Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short the Act). Chapter I to IV thereof came into force on 22.10.1959. In exercise of its rule making power contained in Section 76 of the Act, the State of Rajasthan framed Rules known as the Rajasthan Public Trusts Rules, 1962 which came into force on and from 11.06.1962. Chapter V to X and XII of the Act as also the Rules applicable in relation thereto were brought into operation with effect from 1.07.1962.Questioning the validity of some of the provisions of the Act including Sections 52(1)(d) and 53 thereof, some members belonging to Swetambers Jain sect filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court which was marked as writ petition No. 501 of 1962 praying inter alia for the following reliefs:  (i) The State of Rajasthan and its officers be restrained from enforcing certain provisions of the Act and declare those provisions void,  (ii) Restrain the State and its officers from selling gold and silver ornaments of temple and advancing loan from temple fund,  (iii) Restrain the respondents from carrying out management of the temple and allow the petitioners to manage the temple according to declaration of Samwat 1934.Digambers filed an intervention application therein inter alia contending that the said temple was a Digamber temple.The stand of the State of Rajasthan therein inter alia was that the temple in question was a Hindu temple and not a Jain temple although the Jains have the right of worship. It was furthermore contended that the temple belonged to the erstwhile State of Mewar and as such its management vested in the State.Validity of some of the provisions of the Act were also questioned in the said proceedings. The High Court of Rajasthan, however, in its judgment dated 30.03.1966 held:  (i) Temple of Shri Rikhabdevji is a Jain Temple of Shwetamber Jain sect.  (ii) After merger of State of Mewar, the management of temple was carried on by the Devasthan Deptt. of State and Committee constituted by the erstwhile Ruler of Mewar became defunct.  (iii) The temple vested in the State under Section 52(1) (a) and (c) of the Act.  (iv) The State should take early steps to transfer the management to a Committee as envisaged under Section 53 of the Act.The matter came up before this Court, as noticed hereinbefore, wherein this Court opined:  (i) Shri Rikhabdevji Temple is a Jain temple not a Hindu Temple.  (ii) The management of the temple is vested in the State of Rajasthan.  (iii) If the State intends to apply Chapter X to the temple, it is for it to include it in the list under Section 52(2) of the Act. Section 53 postulates the application of Chapter X for the vesting of management in a Committee to be constituted by the State Government.  (iv) Chairman and members in the Committee of Management should be appointed from the trustees or persons of the section of denomination to which trust belongs.  (v) High Courts direction to constitute a Committee from Management set aside.When the Committee of Management, however, was not constituted within a reasonable time, Swetambers again filed a writ petition bearing No. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21 of 1981 before the Rajasthan High Court inter alia contending that as the State having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 52 and 53 of the Act exercises power coupled with duties, the failure to publish the list and to constitute a Committee would amount to dereliction of duties on its part. In the said writ petition it was prayed for:  (i) To issue a Mandamus directing the State Government to issue a list of public trusts under Section 52(2) of the Act and to constitute a Committee for management in terms of Section 53 of the Act.  (ii) To issue a suitable writ or direction to quash the order dated 29.9.1979 restraining the State from changing the denominational character of the temple.The State in its affidavit in opposition filed in the said proceedings reiterated its position that the temple was a Hindu temple.Although it had not been brought to the notice of the High Court but now it stands admitted that the State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 52 of the Act notified the said temple vested in the State as a self-supporting temple by a notification dated 25.06.1981 in the following terms:No. F.8 (12) General/Dev/79/8550 :- In pursuance to State Governments order no 21/781/R/JU/1/79, dated 14-03-80 and same numbered page dated 17-5-80 and letter no. 14 (3) Khan/Group 2/80 dated 7-1-81, the general public is hereby notified with, list of temples and institutions managed and controlled by Devasthanam Department, Rajasthan, is being classified under those which are in direct management, those which are self sufficient and those which are handed over(committed) to the State, on the basis of available records and survey done till date. All properties of above classified temples and institutions have vested in the State Government. If any person or institutions, without the sanction of the State Government, takes possession in any manner or transfers or sells or mortgages or gets registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public trusts Act, 1959 any temple or institutions notified under this notification will be deemed to be illegal. If any person has any information in respect of any temple or institutions, other than notified but belonging to the State may inform the Devastaham Commissioner in that regard, because enquiry in respect of the temples belonging to the erstwhile State of Jaipur and Jodhpur is in progress.

Reasoning:
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.