JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - In this writ petition the seven Petitioners - the Vice. President and six members of the Kumbhakar Nijog, a body of Sevaks in the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri challenge a Resolution, being Resolution No. 7 passed at a meeting of the Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee held on May 11, 1964 purporting to impose a toll. That resolution is in these terms: Resolution No. 7 the Committee has decided to levy a Gate Masul of Re. 1.06 ps. per headload of earthen pots brought into the Temple by the Kumbhakar Nijogi potters through the southern gate. The opposite party, against whom relief is claimed by the Petitioners is the Sri Jagannath Temple Committee, a statutory body constituted under Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 (Act 11 of 1935). 2. The said Kumbhakar Nijog, of which the Petitioners are the Vice-President and members, claim to have a hereditary right dating almost from the time of the establishment of the Temple of Lord Jagannath, to supply earthen pots and receptacles for the use of the Deities therein free of cost, and in consideration whereof they were entitled to supply, on payment, all the earthenware required for use in the Temple for Bhogs other than the prescribed daily Bhogs known as Kotha Bhogs, to the exclusion of all other makers and suppliers of such earthenware for such purpose. The Petitioners' case is that in pursuance of the aforesaid Resolution No. 7 dated May 11, 1964 the opposite party is illegally demanding and exacting from all persons, who want to sell earthen wares inside the Temple, the said levy of Rs. 1.06 ps. basket load in utter disregard of the well established, recognised and unquestionable, ancient and exclusive title and interests of the Petitioners, as apparent in the Record-of-Rights, to admit inside the Temple premises and sell earthenwares manufactured by them in sole consideration of their daily supply, free of charge in their respective turns, of the required earthenware for Kotha Bhog of the present market value of Rs. 20/-. and is allowing all and sundry to sell earthenware inside the Temple. 3. 20/-. and is allowing all and sundry to sell earthenware inside the Temple. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the opposite party has neither authority nor power to allow any non-member of the Kumbhakar Nijog, or even a member of the said Nijog who does not supply earthenware required for the Kotha Bhog of the Deities, free of cost, in performance of the Seva allotted to each recognised member of the said Nijog as specifically listed in the relevant passage of the Record-of-Rights. 4. The question is: Is the said Resolution No. 7 dated May 11, 1964 passed by the Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (opposite party herein) illegal? The material provisions of Section 15(1) and Section 21(2)(f) of the Sri Jagannath Temple Act of 1954 (Orissa Act 11 of 19.55 are these: 15. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, it shall be the duty of the Committee: (1) to arrange for the proper performance of Seva Puja and of the daily and periodical Nitis the Temple in accordance with the Record-of-Rights; 21.. (2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (1) or in Section 5, the Administrator shall he responsible for the custody of all records and properties of the Temple and shall arrange for proper collections of offerings made in the Temple and shall have power (f) to require various Sevaks and other persons to do their legitimate duties in time in accordance with the Record-of-Rights. 5. The Record-of-Rights referred to in the aforesaid sections has statutory force having been prepared under the Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 (Orissa Act XIV of 1952) which as its preamble shows was an Act to provide for the administration of the Puri Shri Jagannath Temple, preventing mismanagement of the Temple and its endowments, by consolidation of the rights and duties of Sevaks, Pujaris and such other persons connected with the Seva Puja and management thereof. This Record-of-Rights was prepared and finally published in the Gazette. Section 6 of the said The Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 (Orissa Act XIV of 1952) provided that such record-of-Rights shall not be liable to be challenged in a Court of law. 6. This Record-of-Rights was prepared and finally published in the Gazette. Section 6 of the said The Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 (Orissa Act XIV of 1952) provided that such record-of-Rights shall not be liable to be challenged in a Court of law. 6. In column 5 at page 10 of Seva No. 96 of part III of the Record-of Rights in Sri Jagannath Temple at Puri compiled and published under statutory authority in 1956, the following entry (translated in English) appeals: Competence : The Seva is hereditary. In default of Seva, the supply of share of Bhog due to the defaulter would be stopped and necessary steps would be taken to respect of the Jagir held by him; and where for member of the Nijog entirely ceases to perform the Seva the Seveks under this (Ga) Class and those under classes 'Ka' and 'Kha' shall be deprived of their rights to Bell earthen wares inside the Temple. For default of Seva, the incumbents would be dispossessed from respective Jagirs and other potters shall be appointed in their place. This Nijog is supplying the necessary requirements on all days in turns, on the joint responsibility of the Nijog as per schedule attached. They are bound to deliver the earthen wares in the Temple premises. 7. Apart from the fact that the Record-of-Rights as of statutory force cannot be challenged in a Court of law, the entry in the Record-of-Rights quoted above shows that so long as the members of Kumbhakar Nijog continue to perform the Seva by supplying free of cost the earthen pots required for Kotha Bhog, this right cannot be interfered with; special penalties are provided for default in such Seva. Therefore, the levy of toll sought to be imposed on the Petitioners on the strength of the Resolution is clearly unauthorised. By the said Resolution Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee in effect purported to deprive the members of the Kumbhakar Nijog of the right to Seva of Lord Jagannath, through free supply of earthenware for Kotha Bhog. In my opinion, such a levy is outside the scope of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 (Act XI of 1955) for regulating the proper performance, by the Sevaks, of the Seva Puja and Nitis in the Temple, in accordance with the Record-of-Rights. In my opinion, such a levy is outside the scope of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 (Act XI of 1955) for regulating the proper performance, by the Sevaks, of the Seva Puja and Nitis in the Temple, in accordance with the Record-of-Rights. As such, the impugned Resolution is illegal and must be struck down. 8. The other prayers in the petition, which were subsequently added by way of amendment, are of a declaratory character; besides, they involve disputed questions of fact as appears from the statements in the petition which were denied or controverted. Disputed questions of fact can only be decided in a suit and not in a writ petition. 9. In the view we have taken of the petition on merits as discussed above, it is unnecessary to deal with the other points raised on behalf of the parties herein. 10. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent that the said Resolution No. 7 dated May 11, 1961 of the proceedings of the meeting of the Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee purporting to authorise the imposition of gate masul at Re. 1. 06 ps. per headload of earthen pots brought into the Temple by the southern gate is quashed; the opposite party is directed to withdraw the said Resolution, and to act in accordance with the provisions of the Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 (Orissa Act XI of 1955) and the Record-of-Rights prepared under The Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 (Orissa Act XIV of 1952). We make no order as to the other prayers in the petition subsequently added by amendment. 11. The writ petition is thus partly allowed as indicated above. There will be no order for costs. Final Result : Allowed