STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. vs SAJJANLAL PANJAWAT & ORS. Supreme Court, 14-12-1973
| Docket Number | Appeal (civil) 1083 of 1967 |
| Date | 14 December 1973 |
| Parties | STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.SAJJANLAL PANJAWAT & ORS. |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 26
PETITIONER:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SAJJANLAL PANJAWAT & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1973
BENCH:
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
BENCH:
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
DWIVEDI, S.N.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CITATION:
1975 AIR 706 1974 SCR (2) 741
1974 SCC (1) 500
CITATOR INFO :
R 1975 SC1069 (23)
RF 1981 SC1863 (29)
RF 1992 SC1256 (13)
ACT:
Rajasthan Public Trusts Act 1959-ss, 17(3); 52(1) and 53-If
violative of Art. 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
HEADNOTE:
The respondents alleged before the High Court that certain
provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959
contravened their fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts.
25 and 26 of the Constitution. In the first set of appeals
(C.A. Nos. 1083 and 1092 of 1967) the respondents, in their
writ petition, claimed that the temple of Shri Rikhabdevji
(also known as Keshariyanathji temple) was a Swetamber Jain
temple which was under the ownership and management of Jain
Sashan and had been recognised as such in official documents
as well as in the firmans issued by the erstwhile State of
Mewar and that the State usurped the management and applied
the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trusts Act and thereby
contravened their fundamental rights. In the second set of
appeals (C.As. Nos. 1119 and 1087 of 1967) the Chairman of
the Trust Committee of Shri Nakodaji Parasnath Tirath
alleged that the administration and management of the temple
was being carried on by the Trust Committee on behalf of
Swetamber Jain temple and that interference in the
management of the temple and other religious institutions
envisaged by the Act was against the usages and customs,
principles and tenets of the Jain religion.
The High Court struck down s. 17(3) of the Act on the ground
that under the rules made under the Act the sum charged as
registration fee goes to the consolidated fund and was thus
not a fee but a tax which the State Legislature was not
competent to levy. Section 52(1)(d) and (e) were struck
down as invalid as B. 53 had not provided for proper
safeguards of leaving the administration of the property in
the hands of the denomination. But since the management of
the temple had vested in the State prior to the
constitution, the case of Rikhabdevji was held to have been
covered by s. 52(1) (a) or (c) of the Act. Section 53 was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 26
struck down on the ground that since Art. 26 contemplates
not only a denomination but a section of the denomination,
the trustees of a public trust representing the same
religion may not necessarily be members of that section of
the denomination managing the property even if such public
trust has the same object as that of the public trust, the
management of which is being transferred to the Committee of
Management.
In the first set of appeals the High Court held that the
temple was a Swetamber Jain temple which was being managed
by the State. It directed the State to constitute a
Committee for its management as provided in the Act.
Section 17(3) provides that an application to be presented
under sub-S.(1) of that section "shall be accompanied by
such fee. if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be
utilised for such purposes, as may be- prescribed". Rule 18
of the Rules specifies the rates of fee payable on different
values of the trust property enumerated the-rein, and
further provides that the fee shall be credited to the
Consolidated Fund of the State. Section 52(1) of the Act
enacts that the provisions contained in Chapter X shall
apply to every public trust which vests in the State
Government (cl. a) or which is managed directly by the State
Government (cl. c); or which is under the superintendence of
the Court of Wards (cl. d); & Aid of which the gross annual
income is ten thousand rupees or more (cl. e). Section 53
provides that the management of a public trust shall vest in
a Committee of Management to be constituted by the State
Government. Sub-section (5) provides that the Chairman and
Members of the Committee of Management shall be appointed
from amongst (a) trustees of public trusts representing the
same religion or persuasion and having the same objects and
(b) persons interested in such public trusts or in the
endowments thereof or belonging to the denomination
742
for the purpose of which or for the benefit of whom the
trust was founded in accordance with the general wishes of
the persons so interested so far as such wishes can be
ascertained in the prescribed manner.
Allowing the appeals,
HELD : Section 17(3) cannot be held to be invalid and ultra
vires the Dower ,of the State Legislature. The mere fact
that the amount was paid into the consolidated fund is by
itself not sufficient to hold that the levy under s. 17(3)
of the Act is a tax. It was held in the Commissioner of H.
R. E. Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shri
Shirur Mutt that the essence of taxation is compulsion and
imposition made for public purpose without reference to any
special benefit to be conferred on the payer of the tax,
that is to say, that the levy of tax is for the purposes of
general revenue which, when collected, forms part of the
public revenues of the State. A fee on the other hand is
payment for a special benefit or privilege which the
individual receives. It is regarded as a sort of return or
consideration for services rendered and should be correlated
to the expenses incurred by Government in rendering the
services. In the Secretary, Government of Madras, Home
Department v. Zenith Lamp & Electrical Ltd., it was
reiterated that the fact that the collections went to the
Consolidated Fund was not in itself conclusive though not
much stress could be laid on this point because Art. 266
requires that all revenues raised by the State shall form
part of the Consolidated Fund, [765D-H; 76.6A]
In the instant case the expenditure on Devasthan Department
was much more than the income from registration. The mere
To continue reading
Request your trial