Vivian Bose JUDGMENT
B.K. Mukherjea, J.
1. These two connected appeals are directed against a common judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated the 12th of September, 1952, by which the learned judges dismissed two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution presented respectively by the appellants in the two appeals.
2. The petitioners in both the cases assailed the constitutional validity of the Act, known as the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (Act XXIX of 1950), which was passed by the Bombay Legislature with a view to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of the public and religious trusts in the State of Bombay. By a notification, dated the 30th of January, 1951, the Act was brought into force on an from the 1st of March, 1951, and its provisions were made applicable to temples, maths and all other trusts, express or constructive, for either a public, religious or charitable purpose or both. The State of Bombay figures as the first respondent in both the appeals and the second respondent is the Charity Commissioner, appointed by the first respondent under section 3 of the impugned Act to carry out the provisions of the Act throughout the State of Bombay. In one of the appeals, namely, Appeal No. 1 of 1954, the Assistant Charity Commissioner for the region of Baroda has been impleaded as the third respondent.
3. The appellant in Appeal No. 1 of 1954 is a Swetamber Murtipujak Jain and a resident of Vejalpar in the district of Punchmahals within the State of Bombay. He is a Vahivatdar or manager of a Jain public temple or Derasar situated in the same village and the endowed properties appertaining to the temples are said to be of the value of Rs. 5 lakhs. The petition, out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the appellant on the 29th of May, 1952, before the High Court of Bombay, in its Appellate Side, against the three respondents mentioned above, praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction ordering and directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing or taking any steps for the enforcement of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, or of any of its provisions and particularly the provisions relating to registration of public and religious trusts managed by the appellant and payment of contributions levied in respect of the same. The grounds urged in support of the petition were that a number of provisions of Act conflicted with the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under articles 25 an 26 of the Constitution and that the contribution levied on the trust was a tax which it was beyond the competence of the State Legislature to impose.
4. A similar application under article 226 of the Constitution and praying for........