Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J., K.N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.C. Shah and S.M. Sikri

JUDGMENT

K.N. Wanchoo, J.

1. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Orissa High Court raises the question of the constitutionality of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, No. II of 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The challenge to the Act was made by the father of the present appellant by a writ petition filed in the High court of Orissa. The appellant was substituted for his father on the death of the latter while the writ petition was pending in the High Court. The case put forward in the petition firstly was that the Shri Jagannath Temple (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) was the private property of the petitioner, Raja of Puri, and the Act, which deprived the appellant of his property was unconstitutional in view of Art. 19 of the Constitution. In the alternative it was submitted that the appellant had the sole right of superintendence and management of the Temple and that that right could not be taken away without payment of compensation, and the Act inasmuch as it took away that right without any compensation was hit by Art. 31 of the Constitution. It was further pleaded that the right of superintendence was property within the meaning of Art. 19(1)(f) and inasmuch as the appellant had been deprived of that property by the Act, it was an unreasonable provision which was not saved under Art. 19(5). The Act was further attacked on the ground that it was discriminatory and was therefore hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution, as the Temple had been singled out for special legislation, though there was a general law in force with respect to Hindu religious endowments, namely the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act No. II of 1952. Reliance was placed on Arts. 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution to invalidate the Act, though the appellant did not indicate in the petition how those Articles hit the Act. Lastly it was urged that the utilisation of the Temple funds for purposes alien to the interest of the deity as proposed under the Act was illegal and ultra vires.

2. The petition was opposed on behalf of the State and was urged that the Temple was not the private property of the appellant. The case of the State was that it was a public temple and the State always had the right to see that it was properly administered. Before the British conquered Orissa in 1803, the Temple had for a long time been managed by Muslim Rulers directly, though through Hindu employees. After 1803, the Temple began to be managed directly by the British Government, though by Regulation IV of 1809 the management was made over to the Raja of Khurda (who is now known as the Raja of Puri), who was appointed as hereditary superintendent in view of his family's connection in the past with the Temple. Even so, whenever there was mismanagement in the ........