Judgment WANCHOO, J.: The appeal is by special leave from the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant has also filed a writ petition and as the two matters are connected, they will be dealt with together. 2. The appellant is Anant Prasad Lakshminivas Ganeriwal. He is also the petitioner in the writ petition and will hereafter be referred to as the appellant. The main respondents, who are also opposite parties in the writ petition, are the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Director of Endowments, Hyderabad. They will be referred to hereinafter as the respondents. The appellant claims to be the sole hereditary trustee and Mutwalli of the temple of Shri Sitaram Maharaj Sansthan and the subsidiary deity Shri Varadarajaswami, situate at Sitaram Bagh, in Hyderabad. In the earlier part of the nineteenth century, an ancestor of the appellant migrated to Hyderabad and carried on business there. He obviously prospered and in or about 1833 he built a temple at a cost to two lakhs of rupees and installed in it the idols of Shri Rama and other ancillary or subsidiary deities and consecrated the temple for public benefit and worship. In 1841, one Maharaja Chandulal, a minister to the then Nizam, granted a jagir consisting of the villages of Akolee and Bordee in Berar for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. Later, however, these villages were resumed by the Nizam and two other villages were granted instead to the temple. It appears that these two, other villages were also resumed, and the village of Bulgaon was granted to the temple in 1850. It also appears that though village Akolee was resumed, the resumption order was not carried out and that village continued in the possession of the temple, so that since 1850 the temple has been in possession of the two villages for its upkeep and maintenance. In 1853, Berar was transferred to the British Government of India by the Nizam and these two villages therefore came under the administration of the Government of India. In 1859, some doubts arose about the title of the temple to the villages and there were enquiries under the Berar Inam Rules. In 1853, Berar was transferred to the British Government of India by the Nizam and these two villages therefore came under the administration of the Government of India. In 1859, some doubts arose about the title of the temple to the villages and there were enquiries under the Berar Inam Rules. Eventually, it was decided that the title of the temple was good and the villages had been assigned with the rest of Berar to the Government of India for administration and that they had been granted in jagir for a religious object and their devolution was governed by R. IV of the Berar Inam Rules. Thereafter Inam certificates were issued with respect to these two villages in the name of Ramlal, son of Hargopal, who was described as the Manager of the jagirdar, Shri Sitaramji Maharaj of Akolee and Bulgaon. The purpose of the Jagir was mentioned as "for charitable expenses of temple of Shri Sitaram Maharaj situated in the Sitaram Bagh, at Hyderabad" In the twentieth century there was considerable litigation between the members of the family of the founder as to the right of management of the temple. Eventually, it was decided in 1932 that Lakshminivas Ganeriwal, father of the appellant, was to be the manager of the jagirdar, and this decision was finally confirmed in 1933 by the Governor of the Central Provinces. The Government of Hyderabad was trying all along to find out how the income of this jagir was being spent. But it was decided that it was the Government of the Central Provinces alone which had the right to call for accounts of the villages and was responsible to see that the conditions of the grant were fulfilled and in 1941 this position seems to have been accepted by the Government of Hyderabad. 3. After the Constitution came into force from January 26, 1950, the State of Madhya Pradesh took the place of the old Central Provinces and Berar. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted a law known as the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, No. 1 of 1951. In consequence of this law, the two villages were taken over by the State and statutory compensation was awarded. In addition an annual cash grant of Rs. 8,470/- was sanctioned by the State for the upkeep of the temple. In consequence of this law, the two villages were taken over by the State and statutory compensation was awarded. In addition an annual cash grant of Rs. 8,470/- was sanctioned by the State for the upkeep of the temple. Besides this grant, there was a large area of home farm land in the two villages, which was in the possession of the trustee or the benefit of the trust, and it is said that an income of Rs. 1,30,000/- was being realised by the trustee from this home farm land. It further appears that there are hereditary pujaris and mahants of the temple, and these persons had been complaining to various authorities in Hyderabad that Lakshminivas Ganeriwal was misappropriating temple funds on a large scale and neglecting his duties as a trustee and otherwise committing breaches of trust. In 1951, three of the hereditary pujaris filed a complaint before the Government of Hyderabad alleging various acts of mismanagement on the part of the trustee. This was inquired into by the Home Mininster of the State of Hyderabad and he directed that the temple should be managed by a committee of five persons and this was said to have been done with the consent of Lakshminivas Ganeriwal. Later, however, Lakshminivas contended that he had never consented to the appointment of the committee, which would curtail his rights as hereditary trustee. Thereupon, the Home Minister directed the Director of Endowments to make a thorough inquiry into the matter. In the meantime, one of the hereditary pujaris filed a petition under S. 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (No. XIV of 1920) alleging various acts of mismanagement and praying for an order directing rendition of accounts, before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In March 1956, the court directed rendition of accounts and appointed an auditor to scrutinise them. The auditor went into the accounts and made a report showing several gross irregularities therein. In the meantime Lakshminivas Ganeriwal applied for the registration of the temple under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act (No. XXX of 1951) and in June, 1955, the Registrar of Public Trusts directed the registration of Shri Sitaram Maharaj Sansthan, Sitaram Bagh, Hyderabad as a public trust under S. 7 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act No. XXX of 1951. 4. 4. Hyderabad State also had a law for the purpose of providing for the proper administration of religious and public charities and for the due application of the income for the purpose of the trust. This law was known as the Hyderabad Endowments Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) and it came into force in 1940. Section 2 thereof gives the definition of "endowment" as including "every transfer of property which any person may have made for religious purposes or for purposes of charity or public utility". It also provides for a "Book of Endowment" in which "all the estates or properties endowed" would be entered. Section 2 also defines a "trustee" as meaning a person appointed by the maker of the endowment for purposes of management of the property and fulfillment of the objects thereof. Sections 3to 11 provide for the compilation of the Book of Endowment; S. 12 for the management of the endowed property; S. 13 for the duties of the trustee; S. 14 for possession over endowed property; S. 15 for expenditure from the income of endowed property; S. 16 for framing of rules; S. 17 for appeals and S. 18 for revision. It may be added that a large body of rules as many as 478 in number have been framed under the rule-making power conferred by the Act; and the Director of Endowments Hyderabad is given the power to enforce the Regulations and the Rules. In exercise of his power under the Regulations and the Rules, the Director of Endowments issued notice to Lakshminivas Ganeriwal on September 12, 1957 to show cause within a fortnight from the date of the receipt of notice why he should not be removed from the office of trustee of the temple and why the unauthorised trusteeship of the appellant should not be terminated, and six charges were levelled in this notice. Lakshminivas Ganeriwal replied to this notice on September 17, 1957, and pointed out that he was no longer the trustee and that his son, the appellant, had been appointed the trustee under the Madhya Pradesh Act, XXX of 1951 by order of the Deputy Commissioner Amravati in November 1956. He also denied the various charges levelled against him. Lakshminivas Ganeriwal replied to this notice on September 17, 1957, and pointed out that he was no longer the trustee and that his son, the appellant, had been appointed the trustee under the Madhya Pradesh Act, XXX of 1951 by order of the Deputy Commissioner Amravati in November 1956. He also denied the various charges levelled against him. on this reply, a notice was issued on December 31, 1957, to the appellant to the effect that the temple had to be registered under the Regulations, and he was also warned that if he failed to take steps to get the endowment registered, the property would be taken over under the supervision of the Government and no more objection would be heard from him. The appellant objected to this notice on February 1, 1958, and his main contention was that as the trust had been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act, XXX of 1951, the endowment was not liable to be registered under the Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder, and the State of Andhra Pradesh had no jurisdiction over the endowment and its property. 5. Soon after, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court on February 3, 1958, challenging the notice dated December 31, 1957 and the following contentions were raised on his behalf: (1) That by reason of the registration of the trust under S. 7 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act, XXX of 1951, including the temple, the operation of the Regulations was excluded, as the registration under the Madhya Pradesh Act had become final; (2) That in any event, in applying the Regulations to the trust in question, the courts should bear in mind the principle of comity of nations and refuse to interfere with the jurisdiction lawfully exercised by another State, namely, the State of Madhya Pradesh (now Bombay after the States Reorganisation Act, 1956); (3) That the Hyderabad Government had acquiesced in the control of the trust by the authorities in Berar and it was not open to it to repudiate that jurisdiction and claim to exercise the powers under the Regulations; (4) That the Regulations were invalid inasmuch as they infringed the fundamental rights of the appellant under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 6. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 6. The High Court repelled these contentions and by its order dated March 18, 1960, rejected the writ petition, thus upholding the validity of the notice dated December 31, 1957. The appeal is from this order of the High Court by special leave. 7. After the High Court dismissed the writ petition, the Director of Endowments passed two orders. The first is dated June 13, 1960, and it says that as the trustee had not cared to appear before him, even though the judgment of the High Court had been given about three months before, the Director considered in the interests of the institution, that the supervision should be taken over under R. 179 of the Endowment Rules. The second order was passed on June 14, 1960, and it stated that the temple with its buildings etc. situate at Hyderabad, had been taken under the supervision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the management of the temple would vest in the Director of Endowments Hyderabad, from the date of the order, namely June 14, 1960. The writ petition in this Court is directed against these two orders, and by it the appellant challenges the validity of the Regulations and the various rules framed thereunder on the ground that they are repugnant to Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. In addition, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that these orders are not justified even under the Regulations. 8. The State of Andhra Pradesh has opposed the petition, and it submits that the Director of Endowments waited till June 13, 1960, after the dismissal of the writ petition in the High Court, for the appellant to appear in compliance with the notice dated December 31, 1957, so that the endowment might be registered under the Regulations. As, however, the appellant did not appear in reply to the notice, and in view of the previous conduct of the trustees of this temple and the several complaints received against them and the evasion of the trustees even to disclose what the properties of the temple were, immediate action had to be taken under the Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, with a view to secure and preserve the trust property, immediate action was taken so that the property might not be secreted. Therefore, with a view to secure and preserve the trust property, immediate action was taken so that the property might not be secreted. It has also been contended that the Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder gave power to the State to take possession of the endowment and that the two orders were issued under the powers conferred under S. 4 (b) and S. 12 of the Regulations. It is also submitted that the Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder are not ultra vires in view of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the following points for our consideration: (1) By reason of the registration of this trust, including the temple, under S. 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Act No. XXX 1951, the operation of the Regulations is excluded ; (2) The Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder are no longer in fore: as they must be deemed to have been repealed by the Part B States (Laws) Act No. III of 1951; (3) The Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder are repugnant to Art. 14; (4) The Regulations and Rules framed thereunder are repugnant to Art. 19; (5) In any case, the orders passed on June 13 and 14,1960, cannot supported under the Regulations. It will be seem that the appeal is concerned only with the notice dated December 31, 1957, while the writ petition attacks the two orders passed on June 13 and 14, 1960. Though the attack on the notice as well as on the two orders is to a large extent common, we shall first deal with the attack on the notice dated December 31, 1957, which is contained in the first four points raised on behalf of the appellant before us. The fifth point concerns only the two orders of June 1960 and will be dealt with later. Re. (1) 10. The contention of the appellant in this connection is that as the trust has been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act, XXX of 1951, the Regulations cannot now be applied to it, and in any case the Regulations cannot affect property of the temple situate outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. It is true that the two villages (namely, Bulgaon and Akolee) are not situate within the State of Andhra Pradesh; but it is not in dispute that the temple is situate within the State of Andhra Pradesh, and some property of the temple in the shape of shops etc. besides the temple building itself is situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Besides, it is common ground that offerings made by the pilgrims to the temple also constitute a part of its income, and that is received in Hyderabad. As such, we cannot see how the Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder would not apply to this temple, which is admittedly situate in an area to which the Regulations apply. A similar question came to be considered by this Court in State of Bihar v. Sm. Charusila Dasi, 1959 Supp (2) SCR 601: ( AIR 1959 SC 1002 ). In that case the temple was situate in Deogarh in the State of Bihar, though the major part of income yielding property endowed to the temple was situate in Calcutta. The question that arose for decision in that case was whether the Bihar law would apply to the temple and its properties. Section 3 of the Bihar Act made that Act applicable to all public religious and charitable institutions within the meaning of the definition clause in S. 2 (1) of the Bihar Act, and the definition clause provided that the Act would apply to all religious trusts, whether created before or after the commencement of the Bihar Act, any part of the property of which was situate in the State of Bihar. It was held that - "where the trust is situate in Bihar the State has legislative power over it and also over its trustees or their servants and agents who must be in Bihar to administer the trust, and as the object of the Act is to provide for the better administration of Hindu Religious Trusts in the State of Bihar and for the protection of property belonging to the trust outside the State the aim is sought to be achieved by exercising control over the trustees in personam, and there is really no question of the Act having extra-territorial operation." It was further held that - "the circumstance that the temples where the deities were installed are situate in Bihar and that the hospital and charitable dispensary are to be established in Bihar for the benefit of the Hindu public in Bihar, gives enough territorial connection to enable the legislature of Bihar to make a law with respect to such trust." The decision in our opinion makes it abundantly clear that where the trust is situate in a particular State, the law of that State will apply to the trust, even though any part of the trust property, whether large or small, is situate outside the State where the trust is situate. 11. We may also refer to State of Bihar v. Bhabapritananda Ojha, 1959 Supp (2) SCR 624 : ( AIR 1959 SC 1073 ), where a question was raised with respect to the application of the same Bihar Act to a trust situate in Bihar, but in the case of which a scheme had been framed by the District Judge of Burdwan and confirmed by the Calcutta High Court, at a time when the State of Bihar was part of Bengal before the partition of 1911. In that case, it was urged that the Bihar Act did not apply to the temple by reason of the fact that the temple and its properties were administered under a scheme made by the Court of the District Judge Burdwan and approved by the Calcutta High Court both of which were situate outside the territorial limits of Bihar, on the ground that the Bihar Act would otherwise by some of its provisions seek to interfere with the jurisdiction of courts which were outside Bihar and thereby get extra-territorial operation. It was held in that case that it was competent to the Bihar legislature to legislate in respect of religious trust situate in Bihar though some of the properties belonging to the trust might be outside Bihar. And it was further held that S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure would no longer apply in view of S. 4 (5) of the Bihar Act and consequently there was no question of extra-territorial operation of the Bihar Act. 12. In the present case, the temple is situate in Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh. There is some property of the temple there, though the major part of the income yielding endowed property is situate outside in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In view therefore of the decision in Sm. Charusila Dasi s case, 1959 Supp (2) SCR 601: ( AIR 1959 SC 1002 ), the Regulations will apply to this trust as the trust is situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the fact that some of the endowed properties are not in Andhra Pradesh would make no difference. Further the fact that the trust has been registered under The Madhya Pradesh Act, XXX of 1951 cannot exclude the operation of the Regulations in the case of this trust, for the trust is undoubtedly situate within the area where the Regulations are in force. A "public trusts has been defined in S. 2 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Act as meaning "an express or Constructive trust for a public, religious or charitable purpose and includes a temple, a math, a mosque, a church, a wakf or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed for a religious or charitable purpose." Section 3 of the said Act provides that "the Deputy Commissioner shall be the Registrar of public trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or the principal place of business of which as declared in the application made under sub-s. (3) of S. 4 is situate in his district," and he shall maintain a register of public trusts. Section 4 provides for the registration of public trusts. It is obvious that public trust as defined in S. 2(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Act, XXX of 1951 must be a public trust situate in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 4 provides for the registration of public trusts. It is obvious that public trust as defined in S. 2(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Act, XXX of 1951 must be a public trust situate in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Even though S. 2 (4) does not say so in terms, the definition must be confined to public trusts situate in Madhya Pradesh for the Madhya Pradesh legislature could not, obviously did not intend to, legislate with respect to public trusts situate outside Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, S. 2(4) must be interpreted to apply only to public trusts situate in Madhya Pradesh. This conclusion is supported by S. 3 which clearly shows that the Registrar would have jurisdiction in respect of a public trust within his District. As to where a public trust is situate has to be determined in accordance with the decision of this Court in Sm. Charusila Dasi s case, 1959 Supp (2) SCR 601: and on that view the public trust in this case must be situate in Andhra Pradesh and not in Madhya Pradesh where only some of the endowed trust properties are. In the circumstances the registration of the trust under the Madhya Pradesh Act cannot be a bar against the enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Hyderabad Regulations because even if it may he necessary for the purpose of management of the property in Madhya Pradesh to register this trust also in Madhya Prades For Citation : AIR 1963 SC 853