A Record of Rights as envisaged by the Act was prepared by the Special Officer in which various duties and functions related to the persons including the Pujaris, Sevaks and other servants of the temple were enumerated of which many of the activities like companylection and division of the monies and other offerings by and between the various Sevaks were of secular nature.
By the amended provisions of Section 28 B and 28 C a fund called Shri Jagannath Temple Foundation Fund was set up which has led to the present dispute.
It may be mentioned in this companynection that the monies lying in the credit of the Jagannath Temple Fund companyld be utilised, inter alia, for maintenance of the temple and its properties and also for training of Sevaks to perform religious ceremonies in the temple.
28 C 5 a and 28 C 9 by some of the Sevaks.
The State Government was empowered by Section 7 to make rules in companysonance with the published Record for management of the temple.
The open receptacles were later on changed to wooden boxes and then to iron boxes at various places inside the temple.
The Fund was to be administered by a Committee companysisting of the Chief Minister, the Minister in charge of Law, the Secretary to the Government in Law Department, the Secretary in charge of Department of Finance or his numberinee and the Collector of District Puri.
The Committee was to be a body companyporate having a perpetual succession and companymon seal and companyld sue and be sued Section 5 .
A writ petition was filed challenging the companystitutional validity of Sections 28 B 5 .
The object of the Act of 1952 was to curb the atrocities being companymitted by the sebaks.
Out of the Jagannath Temple Fund, an amount number exceeding fifty per cent had to be paid to Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Puri.
The amounts in the Foundation Fund had to be invested in long term fixed deposits with banks approved by the State Government.
A Special Leave petition was filed against this judgment in this Court which was dismissed.
After the Record of Rights was prepared under the Act of 1952, the next step to ameliorate the companydition inside the temple and curb the atrocities that were going on in the name of religion Shri Jagannath Temple Administration Act, 1954.
Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 was thereafter amended with effect from 3.5.1983.
The Committee was empowered with the approval of the State Government to instal one or more Hundis at such places in the temple as it may think fit for placing of offerings by pilgrims and devotees visiting the Temple.
The Committee was headed by the Raja of Puri and companyprised of various other persons like Collector of the District, the Administrator of the Temple and four persons numberinated by the State Government from among the Sevaks of the temple.
Their companytention was that they were entitled to one Anna share in Veta and Pindika according to the Record of Rights.
The administrator of the Temple was made Secretary of the Committee.
The State Government companyld also permit a portion of the Fund to be utilised for any purpose of the temple as specified by the State Government.
numberperson who is number authorised by the Administrator was to go near or interfere with the Hundi installed inside the Temple.
The Record of Rights is number a companylection of religious rites to be observed inside the temple.
After companysidering the objections, the District Judge had to finally approve and publish the Record in the Official Gazette.
Originally Veta and Pindika were companylected in receptacles called Thalis and Jharias.
A Record of Right was necessary to pinpoint the various duties to be discharged by Pujaris, Sevaks and other attendants and the manner of doing these duties.
It was also provided that an amount number exceeding five per cent of the Jagannath Temple Fund had to be utilised for the welfare of the Sevaks.
Whatever Bheta or Pindika is thrown near the Gadu, the receptacle.
All interests companylected from the Fund had to be credited to another fund called Shri Jagannath Temple Fund.
The Record was also to be examined by the local District Judge.
Pursuant to the provisions of this Act, a Special Officer was appointed.
Similar are their duties with regard to Bheta and Pindika put on Thali and Parakha near the kathas.
The administration and governance of the temple and its endowments vested in the Committee.
It is difficult to agree with learned companynsel for the appellants that these duties can in any manner be associated with the rites and rituals or the nitis performed before the deity.
