Mandatory committee of management for public trusts and res judicata barred reopening the temple's character dispute.

Chapter X of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was held to impose a mandatory duty on the State Government to constitute a committee of management once the statutory conditions under Section 52 were met; the power under Section 53 was not discretionary, and the exemption clause could not defeat the scheme. The Court also held that the temple's character could not be reopened, because earlier litigation had conclusively found it to be a Jain temple. Res judicata and estoppel barred the State from rearguing that it was a Hindu temple. The Division Bench's modifications were set aside and the Single Judge's directions were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government was bound to constitute a committee of management for a public trust once Chapter X of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 applied. (ii) Whether the State could still contend that the temple was a Hindu temple and reopen the earlier finding that it was a Jain temple.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government was bound to constitute a committee of management for a public trust once Chapter X of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 applied.

Analysis: Chapter X applied to public trusts falling within Section 52, and the State had already published notifications under that provision. Section 53, which governs management of trusts to which the Chapter applies, uses mandatory language and contains a non-obstante clause. On a plain and harmonious reading of Sections 52, 53 and 77, the power to constitute a committee is coupled with a duty and is not left to administrative discretion. The exemption clause could not be read so broadly as to render Chapter X ineffective, and the Devasthan Commissioner could not be treated as an agency under the control of the State so as to defeat the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The State Government was under a mandatory obligation to constitute the committee of management, and the contrary view of discretion was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the State could still contend that the temple was a Hindu temple and reopen the earlier finding that it was a Jain temple.

Analysis: The nature of the temple had already been conclusively determined in earlier litigation, and the parties were bound by that determination. The attempt to dispute that finding again was barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel, and the Court declined to permit reopening of the issue.

Conclusion: The temple could not be treated as a Hindu temple in these proceedings, and the earlier finding that it was a Jain temple stood binding.

Final Conclusion: The modifications made by the Division Bench were set aside, the Single Judge's directions were restored, and the statutory process for publication of the list and constitution of the management committee was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute governing public trusts employs mandatory language for constitution of a management committee upon application of the relevant chapter, the authority has no discretion to withhold that action, and a prior conclusive determination on the character of the trust cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings between the same parties.

---