The petitioners in both the cases have number companye before us in appeal on the strength of certificates granted 1059 by the High Court under article 132 1 of the Constitution.
Appeals under article 132 1 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 12th September, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Application No.
I of 1954.
880 of 1952 and Miscellaneous Application No.
212 of 1952 respectively.
1 of 1954, and Civil Appeal No.
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 parti cularly the provisions relating to registration of public and religious trusts managed by the appellant and payment of companytributions levied in respect the same.
C. Chatterjee and U. M. Trivedi H. H. Dalal and I. Shroff with them for the appellants in Appeal No.,
7 of 1954.
1 of 1954, the Assistant Charity Commissioner for the region of Baroda has been impleaded as the third respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant in Appeal No.
The petitioners, challenged the validity of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, substantially on the grounds that they interfered with the freedom of companyscience of the petitioners and with their right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion and also with their right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion and thereby companytravened the provisions of articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The levy of companytribution under section 58 of the Act was also alleged in substance and effect to be a tax on public, religious and charitable trusts, a legislation upon which it was beyond the companypetency of the State Legislature to enact.
7 of 1954.
In one of the appeals, namely, Appeal No.
Rajinder Narain for the appellants in Civil Appeal.
The petitioners in this case purport to be the present trustees of the Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties in Bombay registered under the Parsi Public Trusts Registration Act of 1936.
As practically the same questions were involved in both the petitions, the learned Chief Justice of Bombay directed the transfer of the later petition from the Original Side to the Appellate Side of the High Court and both of them were heard together by a Division Bench companysisting of the Chief Justice himself and Shah J. Both the petitions were disposed of by one and the same judgment delivered on the 12th of September, 1952, and the learned Judges rejected all the companytentions put forward on behalf of the respective applicants and dismissed the petitions.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA J. These two companynected appeals are directed against a companymon 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.
By a numberification, dated the 30th of January, 1951, the Act was brought into force on and from the 1st of March, 1951, and its provisions were made applicable to temples, maths and all other trusts, express or companystructive, 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.
These properties companystitute one companysolidated fund and they are administered by the trustees for the benefit of the entire Parsi companymunity and the income is spent for specified religious and charitable purposes of a public character as indicated by the various donors.
C. Setalvad and C.K. Daphtary G. N. Joshi and Porus A. Mehta, with them for the respondents in both the appeals.
