S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) INDISPUTABLY, the matter came up for consideration or an earlier occasion before this Court in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Shri Sajjanlal Panjawat and Others 1974 (2) SCR 741 since reported in. 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.
(3.) 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.;