Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Sinha, C.J., J.C. Shah, K.C. Das Gupta, K.N. Wanchoo and P.B. Gajendragadkar

JUDGMENT

P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This group of seven cross-appeals arises from three writ petitions fieldin the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in which the validity of theNathdwara Temple Act, 1959 (No. XIII of 1959) (hereinafter called the Act) hasbeen challenged. The principal writ petition was Writ Petition No. 90 of 1959;it was filed by the present Tilkayat Govindlalji (hereinafter called theTilkayat) on February 28, 1959. That Petition challenged the validity of theNathdwara Ordinance, 1959 (No. II of 1959) which had been issued on February 6,1959. Subsequently this Ordinance was repealed by the Act which, afterreceiving the assent of the President, came into force on March 28, 1959.Thereafter, the Tilkayat was allowed to amend his petition and after itsamendment, the petition challenged the vires of the Act the provisions of whichare identical with the provisions of its predecessor Ordinance. Along with thispetition Writ Petition No. 310 of 1959 was filed on August 17, 1959, by tenpetitioners who purported to act on behalf of the followers of thePushtimargiya Vaishnava Sampradaya. This petition attacked the validity of theAct on behalf of the Denomination of the followers of Vallabha. On November 3,1960, the third Writ Petition (No. 421 of 1960) was filed on behalf of GoswamiShri Ghanshyamlalji who as a direct descendant of Vallabha, set up an interestin himself in regard to the Nathdwara Temple, and as a person having interestin the said Temple, he challenged the validity of the Act. These threepetitions were heard together by the High Court and have been dealt with by acommon judgment. In substance, the High Court has upheld the validity of theAct, but it has struck down as ultra vires a part of the definition of 'temple'in s. 2(viii), a part of s. 16 which refers to the affairs of the temple; s.28, sub-ss. (2) and (3); s. 30(2)(a); Sections 36 and 37. The petitioners as well asthe State of Rajasthan felt aggrieved by this decision and that has given riseto the present cross-appeals. The Tilkayat has filed Appeal No. 652 of 1962,whereas the State has filed appeals Nos. 653 and 757 of 1960. These appealsarise from Writ Petition No. 90 of 1959. The Denomination has filed Appeal No.654 of 1962, whereas the State has filed Appeals Nos. 655 and 758 of 1962.These appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 310 of 1959. Ghanshyamlalji whoseWrit Petition No. 421 of 1960 has been dismissed by the High Court on theground that it raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be tried underArt. 226 of the Constitution, has preferred Appeal No. 656 of 1962. SinceGhanshyamlalji's petition has been dismissed in limine on the ground justindicated, it was unnecessary for the State to prefer any cross-appeal. Besidesthese seven appeals, in the present group has been included Writ Petition No.74 of 1962 filed by the Tilkayat in this Court under Art. 32. By the said writpetition the Tilkayat has challenged the vires of the Act on some additionalgrounds. That is how the principal point which arises for our decision in thisgroup is in regard to the Constitutional validity of the Act.

2. At this stage, it is relevant to indicate broadly the contentions raisedby the parties before the High Court and the conclusi........