JUDGMENT M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this petition is to removal of 2352 Mahazans out of a total of 3084, including the petitioners, from the list of capable Mahazans entitled to vote for constituting the Managing Committee of Shree Ramnath Devasthan Saunsthan, Zambaulim, (R-2). The Managing Committee, by proposing such large-scale deletions, has altered the status quo prevalent for at least the last 30 years or thereabouts. Moreover, the removal/deletion is on the sole ground that these 2352 Mahazans allegedly do not have a permanent residence in Goa. Therefore, the Managing Committee's interpretation of Articles 6 and 9 of the bye-laws, 1900 does not entitle them to vote. 4. For the elections scheduled on 13.03.2022, this Court, with the parties consent, made an order dated 08.03.2022, transcribed below for the convenience of reference. "Heard Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General with Ms. Maria Correia, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Parag Wagle, learned Advocate for respondent No.3. 2. After this matter was heard for some time, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, which consent, in turn, is based on the instructions the learned Counsel have received from the party whom they represent, the following interim arrangement is ordered: i. The elections to the Managing Committee of Ramnath Damodar Devasthan, Zambaulim scheduled for 13/03/2022, shall now be conducted on 20/03/2022. Necessary notice about the changed date will be published by respondent No.2 on the notice board as also in three newspapers i.e. in Marathi, Konkani, and English, latest by 11/03/2022. ii. The elections will be conducted by the Administrator of Devalaya i.e. the Mamlatdar of Sanguem. The respondent No.2 to render all assistance to the Mamlatdar for the conduct of these elections. iii. The petitioners and the Mahazans, who are now described as non-Goans, whose names have been deleted from the list of capable Mahazans of the Devasthan i.e. the list dated 15/01/2022 and found in the earlier list of December 2020 are permitted to cast their vote at the elections now rescheduled for 20/03/2022. iv. iii. The petitioners and the Mahazans, who are now described as non-Goans, whose names have been deleted from the list of capable Mahazans of the Devasthan i.e. the list dated 15/01/2022 and found in the earlier list of December 2020 are permitted to cast their vote at the elections now rescheduled for 20/03/2022. iv. Similarly, the Mahazans whose names appear in the list dated 15/01/2022 are also permitted to cast their vote at the above elections. v. The Mahazans referred to in clauses (iii) and (iv) above shall cast their votes separately in different ballot boxes for which appropriate arrangement shall be made by the Administrator/Mamlatdar and after the voting is complete, both the sets of boxes will be sealed by the Mamlatdar/Administrator, until further orders. This means that the petitioners and those Mahazans who have been described as non-Goans and whose names appear in December 2020 list and the remaining Mahazans will have to vote in separate ballot boxes. These ballot boxes will have to be identified and sealed by the Mamlatdar/Administrator. vi. The sealing will have to be carried out by the Mamlatdar/Administrator in the presence of the candidates. The candidates therefore to remain present if they so desire at the time of the conclusion of the voting. vii. The ballot boxes sealed and segregated as above shall remain in the custody of the Mamlatdar/Administrator and the further action shall be in terms of the further orders that will be made in this petition. 3. The aforesaid interim arrangements are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties. 4. The aforesaid interim arrangements have been made with the consent and the same were necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Place this matter for further consideration on 22/03/2022. 6. Mr. G.K. Sardessai has now filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners and the Advocates, earlier appearing for the petitioners, are now discharged from appearing any further in the matter. 7. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.'' 5. Based on the above interim arrangements, the polling has taken place, and the votes of the Goan and non-Goan Mahazans have been cast in separate ballot boxes. The ballot boxes have been sealed. 7. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.'' 5. Based on the above interim arrangements, the polling has taken place, and the votes of the Goan and non-Goan Mahazans have been cast in separate ballot boxes. The ballot boxes have been sealed. The members of the erstwhile Managing Committee (R-2), whose terms have already expired, continue to govern the affairs of Damodar Devasthan (said temple). Therefore, learned Counsel for the parties requested the early disposal of this petition. The learned Advocate General also joined in the request for early disposal of this petition. Accordingly, this matter was finally heard. 6. In Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar V/s. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary & Ors., (2000) 2 BomCR 727 a coordinate Division Bench has observed the fate of the bye-laws under the Devasthan ?Regulations of 1886 after the coming into force of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. Therefore, learned Counsel for the parties were requested to address this Court on the said decision, along with their submissions on the other issues that arise in this petition. 7. Mr. Mulgaonkar learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the decision-making process leading to the impugned decision is in breach of principles of natural justice and fair play. The Managing Committee has attempted to overreach judicial orders and orders made by the General Body of Mazanias. He elaborated on this aspect by reference to pleadings and documents on record. 8. Mr. Mulgaonkar, in the context of Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra), submitted that this decision is an authority for the proposition that the bye-laws, even if they continue in force, must be interpreted consistent with the Devasthan Regulations 1933. In case of a conflict, the bye-laws will have to yield. However, he submitted that the first attempt must be to interpret the bye-laws in harmony with the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. He submitted that the interpretation proposed by the Managing Committee would destroy such harmony and even render the bye-laws ultra vires. 9. Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that Article 6 of the bye-laws only prevents non-Goan Mahazans from participating in 'acts of management.' However, this Article has nothing to do with elections and, in any case, does not prevent the non-Goan Mahazans from voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee. 9. Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that Article 6 of the bye-laws only prevents non-Goan Mahazans from participating in 'acts of management.' However, this Article has nothing to do with elections and, in any case, does not prevent the non-Goan Mahazans from voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee. He submits that this is how the provision has been correctly interpreted for several decades by several Managing Committees. He submitted that in the absence of any clear provision in the Devasthan Regulations or the bye-laws, the right to vote that has been exercised for several decades could not be denied. He relies on Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees' Union V/s. Cement Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 142 . 10. Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that on account of historical reasons like the inquisition and forcible conversion, several Mahazans had to flee from Goa while it was under Portuguese rule. He presents that after liberation, the position is different. He submits that the provisions of the bye-laws are required to be construed, bearing in mind the historical perspectives and the provisions of the Constitution of India. 11. For all the above reasons, Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that rule be made absolute in this petition by granting the reliefs. 12. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the Managing Committee (R-2), submitted that if following Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra), the bye-laws are held as repealed, then it is strange that the petitioners do not seek the right to contest elections but restrict their relief only to vote at such elections. He submits that grant of any such relief to the petitioners will disturb the level playing field, and the petitioners, having chosen not to press the right to contest elections, cannot now be granted the limited relief of the right to vote at such elections. 13. Mr. Bhobe submits that the General Body enacted the byelaws in 1900, and they have to be construed from the context of the laws and the historical perspective. He proposes that the expression 'acts of management' in Article 6 of the bye-laws includes the right to vote. He submits that any other interpretation would permit the non-Goan Mahazans to achieve indirectly what the law or the bye-laws prevent them from attaining directly. He proposes that the expression 'acts of management' in Article 6 of the bye-laws includes the right to vote. He submits that any other interpretation would permit the non-Goan Mahazans to achieve indirectly what the law or the bye-laws prevent them from attaining directly. Therefore, he proposes that such non-Goan Mahazans, by exercising their right to vote in the elections to constitute the Managing Committee, would indirectly control the Management and acts of Management of the said temple. 14. Mr. Bhobe submits that merely because non-Goan Mahazans were allowed to vote for the last several decades does not create an estoppel. He presents that the names of such non- Goan Mahazans were included in the catalogue and list due to inadvertence, and the petitioners or other similarly placed non- Goan Mahazans cannot take advantage of the situation simply because such situation may have continued for more than three decades. Therefore, he submitted that there could never be any estoppel against the law and legal interpretation. 15. Mr. Bhobe also pointed that out of the 16 petitioners who have instituted this petition, one of the petitioners has since expired. Fourteen petitioners were enrolled in the catalogue and list of Mahazans in 1994. Only the father of one of the Mahazans was enrolled in the year 1970. He submits that all this was due to inadvertence, and no rights can be claimed because of such inadvertence on the part of the previous Managing Committee. 16. Mr. Bhobe submits that a joint reading of Article 6 and 9 of the bye-laws makes it clear that only the Mahazans, who are permanent residents in Goa and whose ancestors were Portuguese subjects, are entitled to vote and be voted at elections to the Managing Committee of the said temple. He submits that the requirement of ancestors being Portuguese subjects must now be construed as residents now governed by the provisions of the Common Civil Code, 1867. He submitted that even those Mahazans who may have permanent residence in Goa but are not subjected to the Common Civil Code of 1867 are barred from voting or contesting elections to Managing Committees of the said temple. 17. Mr. Bhobe submitted that the incumbent members of the Managing Committee had not contested the elections held on 13.03.2022. He, therefore, presents that they have no personal interest in clinging to power. 17. Mr. Bhobe submitted that the incumbent members of the Managing Committee had not contested the elections held on 13.03.2022. He, therefore, presents that they have no personal interest in clinging to power. He submits that they have not overreached any judicial order, and the so-called change to stance is based on a correct interpretation of bye-laws no.6 and 9. He submitted that there is no estoppel in such matters, and hard cases make good law. 18. Mr. Bhobe submitted that in terms of the administrator's circular dated 02.12.2021, Managing Committees have to revise their catalogue and prepare a revised list of capable Mahazans within a timeline prescribed. He submits that the Clerk/Secretary, therefore, prepared the revised list of capable Mahazans though the earlier catalogue of Mahazans was not altered. He offered there was no intention of overreaching any judicial orders, and the Managing Committee had only implemented the law. 19. Mr. Bhobe submitted that though some objections may have been raised in the returns filed by the Managing Committee, at the outset Managing Committee would welcome a ruling from this Court on the entitlement of non-Goan Mahazans to vote for elections to the Managing Committee rather than require the parties to secure adjudication on this issue from the Administrative Tribunal. He submitted that the issue of entitlement is an issue of law since no serious factual disputes are involved in the matter. He submitted that the law as it now stands debars non-Goan Mahazans from the right to vote. 20. Mr. Bhobe finally submitted that the catalogue of Mahazans as contemplated by Article 23 and the list of capable Mahazans as contemplated by Article 25 are different and distinct. He offered that, in the present case, the names of non- Goan Mahazans have been correctly included in the catalogue of Mahazans, and such catalogue remains intact. However, he submits that the Clerk/Secretary of Devasthan on 15.01.2022 has prepared the list of capable Mahazans under Article 25 of the Devasthan Regulations, deleting the names of 2352 non-Goan Mahazans. He submits that objections were filed by about 277 non-Goan Mahazans, which were rejected by the Managing Committee on 09.02.2022. 21. Based on the above submissions, Mr. Bhobe urged the dismissal of this petition. 22. Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General, submitted that the issue of the repeal of bye-laws did not directly arise in Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra). 21. Based on the above submissions, Mr. Bhobe urged the dismissal of this petition. 22. Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General, submitted that the issue of the repeal of bye-laws did not directly arise in Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra). He submitted that the stray sentence in paragraph 11 should therefore not be construed as its ratio. He offered that Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulations only repeals rules, whether special or general, to the contrary. Therefore, he submits that the ratio of Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra) is that the rules or bye-laws made by the General Body of the Mazanias must not conflict with the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. 23. Mr. Pangam, by reference to the provisions of Articles 1,3,17, 30(5),31(1), and 31(3), submits that the bye-laws can always provide for additional qualifications or disqualifications when it comes to the right of the Mahazans to vote or be voted for the offices of the members of the Managing Committee and their substitutes. He submitted that providing such additional qualifications or disqualifications does not render the bye-laws ultra vires the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. He drew an analogy with the bye-laws of a cooperative society and relied on Sambha V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 182 . Kashinath V/s. Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Seva Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4554 and Uttam Ambadas Gawali V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors . 24. Mr. Pangam also submitted that bye-laws are nothing but a contract between the members, and as long as they do not conflict with the principal Act, that is, the Devasthan Regulations, 1933, they bind all the members. He relied on Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & anr. V/s. District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 632 in support of this contention. 25. Mr. Pangam submitted that the expression 'acts of management' in Article 6 of the bye-laws would include the right to vote or to be voted to the Managing Committee. He submitted that this is why the subject of the right to vote and be voted for the offices of the Managing Committee has been treated separately under Article 31(3) of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. He submitted that non-Goan Mahazans have a right to participate in the meetings of the Mazanias and even vote there on all subjects except at elections to the Managing Committee. 26. Finally, Mr. He submitted that non-Goan Mahazans have a right to participate in the meetings of the Mazanias and even vote there on all subjects except at elections to the Managing Committee. 26. Finally, Mr. Pangam submitted that the Administrator of Devalayas (Mamlatdar) has no concern with non-Goan Mahazans being granted or denied the right to vote. However, his submissions were to assist this Court in deciding the main issue raised in this petition. He, therefore, made it clear that he was not taking any sides in this matter. 27. Mr. S.S. Kantak learned Senior Advocate for respondents nos.4 and 5 submitted that Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra) may not have correctly decided because no reference was made to several provisions of the Devasthan Regulations, including Article 428. He submitted that all parties have correctly proceeded on the basis that the bye-laws of 1900 are still operative, and none of the parties should now be permitted to resile from this position. 28. Mr. Kantak submitted that respondents nos.4 and 5 had objected to the continuance of non-Goan Mahazans in the catalogue of Mahazans because Articles 6 and 9 of the bye-laws interdict such Mahazans. He submitted that the Managing Committee correctly dismissed the objections of the non-Goan Mahazans because of the interdict in the bye-laws and the provisions in Article 32(2) of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. 29. Mr. Kantak submitted that the right to vote for the members of the Managing Committee amounts to taking part in the acts of Management. He relies on the Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Escorts Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1370 . Commissioner of Gift-Tax V/s. Raghu Hari Dalmia & Ors., (2002) 255 ITR 300 and 63 Moons Technologies Limited (Formerly known as ?Financial Technologies India Limited) & Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 401 to submit that equity shareholders have a right to elect the Director of a company and through them participate in the Management of the company. He submitted that a similar analogy must be drawn in this case. 30. Mr. Kantak submitted that only persons with the surnames specified in the bye-laws of 1900 and their descendants have a right to Mahazanship. He presents that most of the petitioners are 'Shanbhags,' and since such a name is not to be found in the byelaws of 1900, the petitioners cannot claim even Mahazanship of the said temple. 31. 30. Mr. Kantak submitted that only persons with the surnames specified in the bye-laws of 1900 and their descendants have a right to Mahazanship. He presents that most of the petitioners are 'Shanbhags,' and since such a name is not to be found in the byelaws of 1900, the petitioners cannot claim even Mahazanship of the said temple. 31. For all the above reasons, Mr. Kantak submitted that this petition may be dismissed. 32. Mr. Parag Wagle, learned Counsel for respondent no.3, submitted that since no appeal was preferred to the General Body, he is not in a position to make any submissions in this matter. 33. Mr. Mulgaonkar, in his rejoinder, submitted that none of the respondents should now be permitted to set up some case that was not the basis for denying the non-Goan Mahazans the right to vote. He clarified that the petitioners had not applied to contest in elections; therefore, the issue of their right to contest does not arise, at least in this petition. He submits that Mr. Kantak's interpretation of the bye-laws is flawed and several surnames have changed over the last 300 to 400 years. He offers that the qualifications for becoming a Mahazan relate to the gotras, not the surnames. He submits that this position has been accepted for the last several hundred years without contest. He offers that even the surnames of the objectors represented by Mr. Kantak find no place in the bye-laws. 34. Mr. Mulgaonkar submitted that the bye-laws impose no restrictions on voting rights. Therefore, the bye-laws cannot be regarded as an interdict under Article 32(2) of the Devasthan Regulations. He submits that the expression "interdict" has a special meaning, like incapability due to a Court order. He, therefore, presents that this petition may be allowed. 35. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 36. Before we evaluate the rival contentions, reference to the background facts becomes necessary to appreciate the circumstance in which the present challenge has landed before us. 37. The Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan (said temple) is administered by a Managing Committee (R-2) elected by the body of members (mazanias) every three years in terms of the Devasthan Regulations 1933 (see Article 40). The body of mazanias comprises the Mahazans of the said temple. 38. In 1900, the body of members (mazanias) framed bye-laws which the then Portuguese Government duly approved. The body of mazanias comprises the Mahazans of the said temple. 38. In 1900, the body of members (mazanias) framed bye-laws which the then Portuguese Government duly approved. In terms of Article 3 of these bye-laws, the founder Mahazans or "cullav?s' (khulaves) are only "goud -sarospoth" (Goud Saraswat) Hindu Brahmins, male descendants of the original gauncars of Margao, "Motho - gramacares" (Mathgramkars), originating from four gotras or tribes known as "counxagotra" "caxeapagotra' 'barodvaja gotra" and "votchgotra", the preference for the performance of devotional acts being regulated by the sequence in which they are mentioned. 39. Up to December 2020, neither party has pleaded or referred to any controversies concerning the preparation of a catalogue of mahazans in Article 23 or the list of capable Mahazans in Article 25 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. Accordingly, in December 2020, the Managing Committee prepared a catalogue of Mahazans, and the Clerk prepared a list of capable Mahazans entitled to vote at elections of the Managing Committee scheduled in March 2021. This catalogue and list comprised 3084 Mahajans, including the Mahazans who may not have had a permanent residence in Goa (for convenience, referred to as the 'non-Goan Mahazans). 40. On 30.01.2021, respondents nos.4 and 5 (Raunak and Nishad) lodged their objections to including 2352 non-Goan Mahazans in the catalogue and the list of capable Mahazans. 41. The above objections were almost entirely based on Articles 6 and 9 of the bye-laws of 1900, which read as follows: Article 6 - Foreigners descending from the Mahazans who reside temporally in Goa, or anywhere else, are considered Mahazans for all purposes and shall enjoy the preeminence and prerogative of the Mahazans with local nationality excepting the acts of Management. Article 9 - The administration of temple and funds shall always be carried out by administrative Committee constituted under the Regulations in force, the Mahazans residing in Goa and Portuguese subjects of four votes of which the body of Mahazans is composed being part of the same in any case.'' 42. By order dated 10.02.2021, the Managing Committee, in the exercise of powers under Article 26 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933, rejected the objections made by Raunak and Nishad. 43. Raunak and Nishad appealed to the body of mazanias (General Body) under para 2 of Article 26 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. 44. By order dated 10.02.2021, the Managing Committee, in the exercise of powers under Article 26 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933, rejected the objections made by Raunak and Nishad. 43. Raunak and Nishad appealed to the body of mazanias (General Body) under para 2 of Article 26 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. 44. The body of mazanias (General Body), by its order dated 14.03.2021, dismissed the above appeal and upheld the order of the Managing Committee dated 10.02.2021. 45. Raunak and Nishad then appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, again in terms of para 2 of Article 26 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. This appeal was numbered Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021 by the Tribunal. 46. Though Raunak and Nishad had applied for deletion of the names of 2352 non-Goan Mahazans from out of 3084 Mahazans from the catalogue of Mahazans and the list of capable members, they did not implead even a single non-Goan Mahazan as a respondent to Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021. The entire attempt was perhaps to secure some orders behind the backs of such socalled non-Goan Mahazans. 47. Initially, the Managing Committee resisted the claims of Raunak and Nishad by filing a reply on 11.06.2021. In this reply, the Managing Committee claimed that the appeal was based on a misconception of Articles 25 and 26 of the Devasthan Regulations provisions. The Managing Committee went on to state that Raunak and Nishad have misinterpreted the scope of the Devasthan Regulations and 'thereby seeking to delete names of Mahazans whose names are included after following the procedure laid down in the Devasthan Regulations.'' 48. The Managing Committee, in its reply before the Tribunal, pointed out that the objections of Raunak and Nishad based on Articles 25 and 26 of the Devasthan Regulations read with Articles 5 and 6 of the bye-laws of 1900 had been duly considered by the Managing Committee and after that the General Body. After deliberating on the same, the objections were rejected. The Managing Committee, in its reply at paragraph 6, stood by its decision dated 10.02.2021 and the General Body's decision dated 14.03.2021. 49. Paragraph 6 of the Managing Committee's reply before the Tribunal reads as follows: "6. It is respectfully stated that the rejection of the objection raised by the Appellant to the catalogue of the Mahajans is perfectly legal and valid, as the said catalogue has been maintained by the Devasthan in accordance with law. 49. Paragraph 6 of the Managing Committee's reply before the Tribunal reads as follows: "6. It is respectfully stated that the rejection of the objection raised by the Appellant to the catalogue of the Mahajans is perfectly legal and valid, as the said catalogue has been maintained by the Devasthan in accordance with law. The interpretation sought to be given by the Appellant, as is apparent form the grounds urged in the appeal, is contrary to the provisions of law and such an interpretation would instead of furthering the object of the Devasthan Regulation would go against the provisions as laid down in the Devasthan Regulation.'' 50. The Managing Committee justified the inclusion of the names of the non-Goan Mahazans in the catalogue and the list of capable Mahazans by pleading the following in paragraph 8 of its reply dated 11.06.2021 before the Tribunal. "8. As a matter of fact, when the applications for including the names as Mahajans are received by the Managing Committee, the same are processed in accordance with the provisions of Devasthan Regulations. All such applications are considered by the Respondent no.2 in its meeting and upon deliberation of the same ascertaining the fact vis-a-vis the Devasthan Regulations the same are either considered or rejected, after the Committee decides to accept the request to include the names as Mahajans the said names is included in the list of Mahajans. Such exercise has been undertaken by the Respondent no.2 from time to time, as and when the said applications are received and the same are processed and considered in accordance with law.'' 51. The Managing Committee finally prayed that Raunak and Nishad's appeal be dismissed with exemplary costs. This reply dated 11.06.2021 was supported by an affidavit of Shri Sandesh Kunde, Secretary/Clerk of the Managing Committee, who stated that he was conversant with the facts of the case and that he solemnly affirms that the contents of the reply are based on his personal knowledge and records to which he has access. 52. After all this, sometime in September 2021, the Managing Committee began to sing a different song for something more than what meets the eye. 52. After all this, sometime in September 2021, the Managing Committee began to sing a different song for something more than what meets the eye. Though no pleadings were filed before the Tribunal to retract from the reply dated 11.06.2021 or the legal and factual contentions pleaded therein, the Managing Committee members possibly reached some understanding with Raunak and Nishad, based upon which the Tribunal was persuaded to make an order dated 15.09.2021. 53. An impression was created before the Tribunal that such order if made, would be quite innocuous. However, based on this order, the Managing Committee usurped free rein to uphold Raunak and Nishad's objections and delete almost 2352 Mahazans from the list of 3084 capable Mahazans. All this was behind the backs of the Mahazans, whose names were attempted to be deleted. 54. By grossly misinterpreting and even perhaps making unauthorized additions to the Tribunal's order dated 15.09.2021, the Secretary/Clerk of the Managing Committee published a notice (bearing no date) in the daily Lokmat (see page 183 of the paper book). This notice reads as follows: "As per the directions of the Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 15/09/2021, the managing Committee has prepared a list of capable mahazans as per Article 25 of Devasthan Regulations and by keeping in mind clause 5, 6 and 9 of the Saunsthan Bye Laws. Only those mahazans who are permanent residents of Goa are eligible to be added to the list of capable mahazans and are entitled to vote as well as participate in the administration of the temple. The said list of capable mahazans is drawn from the December 2020 catalogue of mahazans prepared by the managing Committee as mandated by the Devasthan Regulations Act. The said list of capable mahazans will be kept in the Saunsthan office for inspection from 01/11/2021 till 15/11/2021. (9.00 am. to 12.00 noon/3.00 pm to 6.00 pm). If any capable mahazan, originally featuring in the December 2020 catalog of mahazans, doesn't find his name featuring in the list, then a claim to that effect may be filed before the Managing Committee along with proof that he is a permanent resident of Goa. Apart from other documents which may be considered on case to case basis, the electoral roll of last 03 (three) Goa state assembly elections would be considered as the main criteria to ascertain permanent residence. Apart from other documents which may be considered on case to case basis, the electoral roll of last 03 (three) Goa state assembly elections would be considered as the main criteria to ascertain permanent residence. If the capable mahazan is between the age of 18 to 33 years, then he may produce Bonafide certificate issued by respective educational institutions in Goa along with Goa state electoral roll to determine permanent residence in Goa. All such claims to be submitted to Managing Committee in writing along with supporting documents by 20/11/2021. The said above notice is as per Managing Committee resolution dated 15.10.2021 passed as per the order dated 15/09/2021 passed by Administrative Tribunal. Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan Sd/- Secretary Sandesh Kunde'' 55. The above notice was quite misleading because it gives an impression that the Tribunal's order dated 15.09.2021 had declared that only those Mahazans who are permanent residents of Goa are eligible to be added to the list of capable Mahazans and entitled to vote for elections to the Managing Committee of the said temple. The notice states that it is as per Managing Committee's resolution dated 15.10.2021 passed as per the order dated 15.09.2021 by the Administrative Tribunal . The Tribunal had nowhere held that only those Mahazans who are the permanent residents of Goa are eligible for inclusion in the list of capable Mahazans or entitled to a vote. 56. After publishing the misleading notice, a list of capable Mahazans was notified on 31.10.2021, deleting the names of almost 2352 Mahazans from out of 3084 Mahazans in the list of capable Mahazans. However, there is no clarity on whether this deletion was by the Managing Committee or the Clerk/Secretary. 57. The deletion was solely on the ground that the said Mahazans did not have a permanent residence in Goa and, therefore, in terms of Articles 6 and 9, were not entitled to take part in the acts of Management, which, according to the Managing Committee or its Clerk included the right to vote. 58. The above stance of the Managing Committee or its Clerk was diametrically opposed to its view reflected in the order dated 10.02.2021 rejecting objections filed by Raunak and Nishad on identical Grounds. Moreover, the body of mazanias (General Body), by upholding the Managing Committee's order dated 10.02.2021, had maintained this very stance. 58. The above stance of the Managing Committee or its Clerk was diametrically opposed to its view reflected in the order dated 10.02.2021 rejecting objections filed by Raunak and Nishad on identical Grounds. Moreover, the body of mazanias (General Body), by upholding the Managing Committee's order dated 10.02.2021, had maintained this very stance. Yet, despite all this, the Managing Committee or its Clerk proceeded to effect such large-scale deletions under the Tribunal's order dated 15.09.2021. Moreover, they obtained this order without disclosing the full implications and behind the backs of those who would be most affected. 59. The petitioners instituted Writ Petition No.2360/2021(Filing No.), apprehending that the deletions proposed by the Managing Committee might be given effect. However, since the Managing Committee's mainstay was the Tribunal's order dated 15.09.2021, the petitioners challenged the said order. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 24.11.2021, not only stayed the Tribunal's order dated 15.09.2021 but also stayed the list of capable Mahazans dated 31.10.2021 and restrained the Managing Committee and the general body of the Devasthan from finalizing the same or acting in furtherance of the same. 60. This Court ultimately disposed of the Writ Petition No.2360/2021(Filing No.) by order dated 04.01.2022. The Tribunal's order dated 15.09.2021 was set aside. Devasthan Appeal Nso.3/2021 instituted by Raunak & Nishad was restored to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The list/notice dated 31.10.2021 was also set aside. Raunak and Nishad were granted liberty to implead the present petitioners or at least some of them in a representative capacity by resorting to the proceedings under Order I Rule 8 of CPC. However, all parties' contentions were left open for determination by the Tribunal in Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021. 61. The basis of the order dated 04.01.2022 was the insistence upon compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play. In effect, this Court did not approve the attempt of the Managing Committee to delete the names of the non-Goan Mahazans based on the Tribunal's order dated 15.09.2021 obtained behind the backs of such non-Goan Mahazans. Further, to grant the fair opportunity to all parties, this Court restored Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021 before the Tribunal made orders for impleadment of non-Goan Mahazans at least in a representative capacity and requested the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits. This order was made after hearing Raunak, Nishad, the Managing Committee, and the General Body of the said temple. 62. This order was made after hearing Raunak, Nishad, the Managing Committee, and the General Body of the said temple. 62. Based on this Court's order dated 04.01.2022 and the consequent remand, it was expected that the parties would pursue the appeal and secure a verdict on their respective versions concerning the interpretation of Article 6 of the bye-laws from the Tribunal. Until such a decision, it was expected from the Managing Committee that the status quo would not be disturbed and there would be no deletions of the names of Mahazans on the alleged grounds that they did not have any permanent residence in the State of Goa. 63. The Managing Committee, possibly to overreach the orders made by this Court and to pre-empt the Tribunal from deciding Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021 on merits, caused the Secretary to notify a list of capable Mahazans on 31.12.2021 deleting 2352 Mahazans from out of the 3084 Mahazans in the catalogue of Mahazans prepared under Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations. 64. The above list was published in the newspaper on 14.01.2022 and displayed in the Committee office on 15.01.2022. Mr. Bhobe submitted that the Secretary/Clerk undertook this exercise under Article 25 of the Devasthan Regulations. Mr. Bhobe, however, maintained that the catalogue of Mahazans prepared under Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations was intact, and the names of the non-Goan Mahazans were continued in it. 65. Some of the non-Goan Mahazans protested the attempted deletions by addressing representations. Such representations were considered as objections under Article 26 of the Devasthan Regulations and disposed by the Managing Committee on 09.02.2022 by taking a view diametrically opposed to its earlier stance in the order dated 10.02.2021. The Managing Committee even ignored the general body's order dated 14.03.2021, approving the Managing Committee's order dated 10.02.2021. The order dated 09.02.2022 declares the non-Goan Mahazans as "incapable Mahazans" because they do not have a permanent residence in Goa. 66. Article 32 of the Devasthan Regulations provides the four circumstances in which the Mahazans may become "incapable.' None of these circumstances were even remotely attracted to the non-Goan Mahazans. 67. The petitioners also filed their objections on 18.01.2022 to the Managing Committee's attempt at deletion of their names. However, they instituted the present petition on 19.01.2022, alarmed by the actions of the Managing Committee that appeared to be determined to delete their names. 68. 67. The petitioners also filed their objections on 18.01.2022 to the Managing Committee's attempt at deletion of their names. However, they instituted the present petition on 19.01.2022, alarmed by the actions of the Managing Committee that appeared to be determined to delete their names. 68. On 09.02.2022 and 08.03.2022, this Court made orders facilitating the holding of elections scheduled on 13.03.2022. In terms of these orders, the Goan Mahazans and the non-Goan Mahazans have cast their votes in separate ballot boxes. Both the ballot boxes are sealed, and the Managing Committee, whose term has already expired, continues to govern the said temple's affairs. 69. The learned Counsel for the parties, including, in particular, Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the Managing Committee, submitted that though objections based on alternate remedy, etc. had been raised in the reply, he was not pressing the same because the Managing Committee wished to have an adjudication on this issue from this Court. He also submitted that there are no seriously disputed facts, and the matters can be decided based on the pleadings and the materials produced on record by the parties. Finally, the learned Counsel submitted that it would be better if the case is decided on merits to clarify the entitlement of non-Goan Mahazans to vote at elections to constitute the Managing Committee. 70. Thus, in the above circumstances, the matter was finally heard on 19.07.2022 and 25.07.2022. The arguments concluded on 26.07.2022, and the case was reserved for orders. 71. Mr. Mulgaonkar, as noted above, has attacked the impugned decision deleting 2352 out of 3084 Mahazans on the ground that the decision-making process was wholly flawed and even otherwise, the impugned decision was unsustainable on merits. 72. In our opinion, there is much substance in Mr. Mulgaonkar's contention that the decision-making process leading to the impugned decision was flawed. Our reasons for this finding are discussed hereafter. 73. The Managing Committee virtually attempted to overreach or short circuit judicial orders, including this Court's order dated 04.01.2022, setting aside Tribunal's order 15.09.2021 and restoring Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021 before the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. 74. The basis and the purpose for making the order dated 04.01.2022 was to grant all the parties, including, in particular, the parties whose names were proposed to be deleted, a fair opportunity of adjudication before the Tribunal. 74. The basis and the purpose for making the order dated 04.01.2022 was to grant all the parties, including, in particular, the parties whose names were proposed to be deleted, a fair opportunity of adjudication before the Tribunal. Any action for the deletion or otherwise could have begun subject to the outcome of Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021. 75. On the earlier occasion, the Managing Committee reached an arrangement with Raunak and Nishad and persuaded the Tribunal to make an order dated 15.09.2021, based upon which the Managing Committee attempted to delete 2352 Mahazans from out of 3084 Mahazans from the list of capable Mahazans. The full implications of such an order were never made clear to the Tribunal. All this was achieved behind the backs of these 2352 Mahazans. 76. On this occasion, the Managing Committee did not even bother about the pendency of Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021, and under cover of circular dated 02.12.2021, again caused its Secretary/Clerk to delete the names of 2352 Mahazans. This entire subterfuge was to defeat the judicial orders and avoid adjudication through Court/Tribunal. This introduces a serious flaw in the decision-making process. 77. The Managing Committee, by its order dated 10.02.2021, had already rejected Raunak and Nishad's objections to the retention of the names of the non-Goan Mahazans in the catalogue of Mahazans and the list of capable Mahazans. The General Body upheld the Managing Committee's order on 14.03.2021. In the challenge to these orders before the Tribunal, the Managing Committee filed a strong reply defending its actions. The Managing Committee also filed a response that the inclusion of the names of the non-Goan Mahazans was after following all due procedures and asserted that there was no infirmity in such inclusion. Yet, despite all this, the same Managing Committee, without any variation in facts, arrived at a diametrically opposite decision. Such a decision-making process can hardly be described as a process consistent with principles of natural justice and fair play. 78. As noted earlier, Mr. Bhobe repeatedly maintained that the catalogue of Mahazans prepared under Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933 was intact. The names of the non- Goan Mahazans continue in it. Such a decision-making process can hardly be described as a process consistent with principles of natural justice and fair play. 78. As noted earlier, Mr. Bhobe repeatedly maintained that the catalogue of Mahazans prepared under Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933 was intact. The names of the non- Goan Mahazans continue in it. He submitted that in the list published in the newspaper on 14.01.2022 and displayed in the Committee office on 15.01.2022, it is the Clerk/Secretary who, under Article 25 of Devasthan Regulations, had deleted the names of 2352 Mahazans from the list of capable Mahazans. 79. Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations provides that the bodies of members (mazanias) shall have a catalogue of their components written down in their book concerned, prepared according to model no.24, annexed to the Regulation. This shall be revised every year by the Managing Committee till December 31, by making therein enrolments in harmony with the bye-laws, the necessary eliminations, and the endorsements to the enrolments of those "which may become incapable .'' 80. Article 24 of the Devasthan Regulations expressly permits the enrolment of members (mazanes) residing abroad, provided they satisfy the legal requirements. There is no dispute that the expression "abroad" means beyond the territories held by the Portuguese before Goa's Liberation on 19.12.1961. 81. Article 25 of the Devasthan Regulations reads as follows: "Art.25 - In view of the catalogue, the Clerk of the committee shall draw up, till the January 15, a list, in duplicate, of the capable members (mazanes) or associates, it being displayed one copy for the inspection of interested persons, at the respective temple, with a prior notice published in the periodicals of the taluka (concelho), there being any, or in Government Gazette and the other forwarded to the Office of Taluka (Concelho) Administrator till the 20th of the said month.'' 82. Since Mr. Bhobe has made it clear that the catalogue of Mahazans prepared under Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations was never amended, and the non-Goan Mahazans continued in the catalogue, we fail to appreciate how the Clerk/Secretary of the Managing Committee could have on 31.12.2021 prepared a list of capable Mahazans by excluding 2352 Mahazans from the catalogue of Mahazans under Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations. Despite our queries, we received no satisfactory response on this issue from any of the learned Counsel for the respondents. 83. Despite our queries, we received no satisfactory response on this issue from any of the learned Counsel for the respondents. 83. Article 25 begins with the expression open "in view of the catalogue." Further, Article 25 leaves it to the Clerk of the Committee to draw up the list of capable Mahazans and then display the same as prescribed. Thus, it is quite clear that the Clerk of the Committee could not have ignored the catalogue of Mahazans that included the names of 3084 Mahazans, including the so-called non-Goan Mahazans. 84. The above circumstances expose yet another flaw in the decision-making process leading to the deletion of 2352 Mahazans from the list of capable Mahazans. 85. The Secretary/Clerk of the Managing Committee attempted to mislead the Mahazans by publishing a notice that created an impression that the Administrative Tribunal, by its order dated 15.09.2021, had declared that the Mahazans not having a permanent residence in Goa were not entitled to vote. Even the order dated 15.09.2021 was obtained without giving the Tribunal a whole idea that the same was to be used to delete 2352 Mahazans or to resile from the pleadings before the Tribunal. The order dated 15.09.2021 was obtained without making any of the non-Goan Mahazans as parties to the proceedings in Devasthan Appeal No.3/2021, whether in a representative capacity or otherwise. 86. All the above circumstances, if individually or cumulatively considered, establish that the decision-making process leading to the deletion or the attempted deletion of 2352 Mahazans was flawed. The process violated the principles of natural justice and fair play and was aimed at overreaching the judicial process. The process ignored the relevant legal provisions in Articles 23 and 25 of the Devasthan Regulations. The Secretary/Clerk acted ultra vires. 87. The process also ignored the binding decision of the General Body that the Managing Committee and its Clerk quite unceremoniously ignored. Finally, the process also ignored the provisions of Article 32 of the Devasthan Regulations and the circumstance that none of the four predicates prescribed therein were even remotely attracted to the 2352 Mahazans, who were declared incapable Mahazans based on a misinterpretation of the bye-laws. On all these grounds alone, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 88. However, the learned Counsel for the parties time and again requested this Court to decide the matter on merits by interpreting the import and scope of the bye-laws, 1900. On all these grounds alone, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 88. However, the learned Counsel for the parties time and again requested this Court to decide the matter on merits by interpreting the import and scope of the bye-laws, 1900. They submitted that the material they placed on record is sufficient to determine the issue on merits. They do not press the objection based on alternate remedies or disputed facts. 89. Even otherwise, we think that such objections lack merit. The parties were very much before the Tribunal in the Devasthan Appeal 3/2021. But unfortunately, the Managing Committee, instead of awaiting the appeal's disposal, short-circuited the process. This was possibly because it might have been difficult for the managing Committee to resile from its reply before the Tribunal. This was possibly to avoid an adverse verdict from the Tribunal. In such circumstances, there was hardly any merit in the objections raised and given up. In any case, deferring to this request, we examine the merits of the impugned decision to delete the names of 2352 from the 3084 Mahazans from the list of capable Mahazans. 90. The law concerning the administration of temples in Goa is the "Regulamento das Mazanias" (Devasthan Regulation), enacted by the Portuguese Legislature in 1933. This law continues in force even after liberation, given the provisions of the Goa, Daman, and Diu Administration Act 1962. Furthermore, this Act was amended by the UT/State legislature several times, about which there is no serious dispute. Therefore, all the parties rely upon this law to support their respective contentions in this petition. 91. Dr. Rui Gomes Pereira, in his work "Hindu Temples and Deities" (1978), writes about the evolution of the law to govern the administration of Hindu temples. He notes that 'Mazanias' are associations of a religious nature consisting of the founders of Hindu temples or their descendants. The expression 'Mahazan,' a title the members use, means 'elder' (Maha: great and Zan: person). Every male descendant, by masculine lineage, has the customary right to become its member on attaining the prescribed age. 92. Dr. Rui Gomes Pereira writes that up to the XIX century, there were several difficulties in the administration of temples and temple properties because Mazanias did not have a juridical personality and, consequently, could not directly be parties in acts and contracts. 92. Dr. Rui Gomes Pereira writes that up to the XIX century, there were several difficulties in the administration of temples and temple properties because Mazanias did not have a juridical personality and, consequently, could not directly be parties in acts and contracts. According to the old custom, all the donations in their favor were made in the name of their Mahazans or priests. However, when commerce progressed, donations poured in on festive occasions in fulfillment of vows and thanksgiving for divine graces received. As a result, temples became very rich, but all this income and the properties so donated stood in the name of certain Mahazans or priests who invested this in profitable transactions in their own names. 93. Dr. Rui Gomes Pereira writes that in the absence of proper regulatory measures, funds were diverted for personal benefit. Sometimes the descendants of those who possessed these properties alienated them and pocketed their price. At other times the properties were attached and sold in public auction on account of the debts of their supposed owners. As a result, the posts in the administrative Committee of those temples became much desired and disputed. Complaints were submitted to the Government against the diversion of funds, usurpation, alienation of immovable property, non-submission of accounts, and other irregularities; thus came the call for urgent measures to put a stop to such practices. 94. Dr. Rui Gomes Pereira writes that this caused the Portuguese Government to establish an official tutorship in those institutions. The Edict of November 14, 1828, made some provisions, but they were insufficient to set right the irregularities in administrating the temples. This led to the appointment of the inquiry commission, whereby the Mahazans were forced to declare the properties of the temples they held in their name. This was only possible when they were taken before the deity and were forced to swear according to the customary system, as is testified in the record of proceedings held on November 26, 1881, by the Government Commissioner for listing the properties of the temple of Shantadurga of Queula and other temples in the same village. Similar inquiries were made regarding various other temples and inventories of their movable and immovable properties. Properties were restored to many temples through the Courts. There was an urgent need for stricter legislation. 95. Similar inquiries were made regarding various other temples and inventories of their movable and immovable properties. Properties were restored to many temples through the Courts. There was an urgent need for stricter legislation. 95. Therefore, a study committee was appointed, and based on its report, approval was granted by 'Portaria' No.584 on October 30, 1886, to the Regulamento das Mazanias (Rules governing Mazanias), which continued to be in force till the publication of the second 'Regulamento' - Legislative Diploma No.645 of 1933 - slightly amended subsequently by the Legislative Diplomas No.1311 of October 29, 1949, and 1388 of July 19, 1951. 96. Dr. Rui Gomes Pereira writes that the loopholes in the law were plugged, the vulnerable points were defended, and the outflow of their funds was stopped. The Mazanias were invested with a juridical personality so they might henceforth directly enjoy rights, discharge obligations, and establish how this should be represented. Orders were issued to organize a catalogue of the Mahazans, thus putting an end, once and for all to the disputes on who should be held as a member or not, along with the necessary provisions of law to guarantee to the presumed Mahazans the right of proving such a qualification through the 'Tribunais Contenciosos Administrativos' (Administrative Tribunals). 97. Dr. Rui Gomes Pereira writes that 'Regulamento' is a general law applicable to all the Mazanias. The 'Compromisso' is the private statute of each of them. The object of which is mainly to define who has the right of being held as its member; the honors, prominence, rights, and duties of members, the festivals and the daily and periodical rites, the listing of its servants and their rights and duties and the foreseen income and the expenses inherent to the cult. The Compromissos are subject to the approval of the Government, which has the right to decide all the issues that may be raised on the points or aspects foreseen in the same, either as regards the Constitution of the Mazanias and their patrimony or as regards other aspects connected with the rights of Mahazans or others, established by custom. 98. Article 17 of the Devasthan Regulation provides for the bodies of members (mazanias) to have a legal constitution. 98. Article 17 of the Devasthan Regulation provides for the bodies of members (mazanias) to have a legal constitution. It shall be required to have bye-laws approved by the Government, mentioning, inter alia, the designation of the Devasthans and their dependent temples of the groups or family groups of which the bodies of members (mazanias) are composed, tribe, "gotra' (progeny comprising various families), when the associates are Brahmins, class, and surnames (mazanias) rights and obligations, honors and responsibilities of which family group, and of families within the family groups, cult, obligatory religious acts and festivities, fun receipts and expenditure, servants and their obligations and pay, rates of cultural and festive acts, and any other provisions that may not be in opposition to this Regulation and the general law. 99. The bye-laws of the temple of Shree Damodar and its affiliates in Sanguem Taluka were approved and published in Government Gazette No.27 dated 06.04.1900. The parties have placed on record the Portuguese version as well as the English translation. There is no dispute that these bye-laws were prepared and approved under the Devasthan Regulation of 1886, then in force. 100. Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulation 1933, among other things, repeals the Devasthan Regulation issued vide Government order No.584 dated 30.10.1886. Accordingly, the status of bye-laws prepared and approved under the Devasthan Regulation 1886 after the Devasthan Regulation 1933 entered force and came up for consideration in Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra) before a coordinate Division Bench of this Court. 101. A Co-ordinate division bench in paragraph 11 held as follows: "11. The Devasthan Regulation relating to Hindu temples, was enacted by Act of Legislature No. 645 dated March 30, 1933 by the Portuguese. It was felt that earlier Regulation, governing Hindu temples in force, approved by the Government Order No. 584 dated October 30, 1886, was required to be updated in the public interest. Accordingly the previous Devasthan Regulation under Government Order No. 584 dated October 30, 1886, was repealed and the Devasthan Regulation by Act of Legislature No. 645 dated March 30, 1933, was introduced. Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulation, in force repealed not only the Devasthan Regulation approved by Government Order No. 584 dated 30-10-1886, but also the rules to the contrary, general as welt as special. Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulation, in force repealed not only the Devasthan Regulation approved by Government Order No. 584 dated 30-10-1886, but also the rules to the contrary, general as welt as special. It appears that the bye-laws under Government Order No. 108 were framed for the purpose of administration of temple of Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin Devasthan of Marcela, Goa and the associate temples thereunder in terms of the said Government Order No. 584 dated 3-10-1886. If it is so, then bye-laws under Government Order No. 108 would stand automatically repealed in view of Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulation in force. Even, otherwise, Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulation clearly postulates that the rules to the contrary, general and special, stand repealed. There is no provision in the Devasthan Regulation for election of Committee of 'Dazans' for the purpose of administration and Management of the Devasthan.....'' 102. Thus, in the opinion of a coordinate Division Bench, Article 437 of Devasthan Regulation 1933 repealed not only the Devasthan Regulation approved by Government order No.584 dated 30.10.1986 but also the bye-laws framed by the temple concerned on 27.10.1910. The Division Bench, in fact, held that the bye-laws would stand automatically repealed because of Article 437 of Devasthan Regulation, 1933. 103. The learned Counsel for the respondents, including Mr. Pangam, submitted that the issue of repeal of bye-laws was not necessary for the decision in Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra). Therefore, the line about bye-laws being automatically repealed due to Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933, may not be taken as the ratio. 104. In the facts of the present case, we do not think we must base our decision on the ruling of the coordinate Division Bench in Shri Vinayak Kamat Tarcar (supra). Therefore, the issue of the precise ratio of the said decision or the impact of Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulations and the bye-laws of 1900 that were admittedly framed under the 1886 law is kept open for consideration in an appropriate case. 105. However, even if we proceed on the basis that the bye-laws of 1900 continue in force, in our opinion, nothing in the said bye-laws debars the non-Goan Mahazans from voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee of the said temple. 105. However, even if we proceed on the basis that the bye-laws of 1900 continue in force, in our opinion, nothing in the said bye-laws debars the non-Goan Mahazans from voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee of the said temple. At least in the last three decades, such non-Goan Mahazans have voted at the polls, and in the absence of explicit bye-law provisions, we do not think they can be deprived of this right based on the contentions of the learned Counsel for the respondents. Even if any explicit provisions were to be made in the bye-laws, the issue of their enforceability, should they conflict with the Devasthan Regulations, would survive. 106. The Managing Committee raised no serious arguments regarding non-compliance with the qualifications prescribed in Articles 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the bye-laws of 1900 regarding non- Goan Mahazans. Article 4 states that all Mahazans have equal rights and prerogatives except for the preference observed since remote times and mentioned in Article 3 of the bye-laws. 107. However, Mr. Bhobe, Mr. Kantak, and even Mr. Pangam submitted that the expression 'acts of management' in Article 6 of the bye-laws includes the right to vote or contest elections to the Managing Committee. Therefore, they submit that by voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee, the non-Goan Mahazans would at least indirectly perform the 'acts of management' that Article 6 of the bye-laws forbids them from performing. 108. There is at least no dispute that the expression 'foreigners' referred to in Article 6 of the bye-laws means Mahazans who do not have any permanent residence in Goa or, in other words, the non-Goan Mahazans. The expression 'foreigners' has to be construed in the historical context when Goa was considered a part of Portugal up to 19.12.1961. Therefore, even the descendants of the founder Mahazans residing just beyond the borders of Goa were treated as 'foreigners' for all legal purposes. 109. Neither Article 6 of the bye-laws nor any other articles of the bye-laws make any specific reference to the right of the Mahazans to vote at the elections for constituting the Managing Committee. Therefore, even the descendants of the founder Mahazans residing just beyond the borders of Goa were treated as 'foreigners' for all legal purposes. 109. Neither Article 6 of the bye-laws nor any other articles of the bye-laws make any specific reference to the right of the Mahazans to vote at the elections for constituting the Managing Committee. However, Article 31 of the Devasthan Regulation, which is a legislative instrument and therefore superior to the byelaws of 1900, provides that it shall be incumbent on the members into (Mazanias) or Associates to vote and be voted for the offices of the members of the Managing Committee and their substitutes. 110. The relevant extract of Article 31 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: "Article 31-It shall be incumbent on the members (mazanes) or associates: 1) To discuss and vote in all their meetings; 2) To examine the statements of receipts and expenditure, the estimates for auction and its conditions, the statements of accounts and ordinary and extraordinary budgets, in the periods and in the manner laid down under this Regulation; (3) To vote and be voted for the office of members of the Managing Committee and their substitutes; 4) ... 5) ... 6) ... 7) ... 8) ... 9) ... 10) ... 11) To serve the administrative posts to which they may be appointed and to discharge any service commissions with which they may be charged; they shall not be bound to serve for more than three years the posts of Managing Committee, and others for more than a two-year period.'' 111. There was a dispute about using the word "incumbent" in Article 31 of the Devasthan Regulations. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the translation might not be appropriate. However, this word is used in the official government translation. Be that as it may, even if we hold that Article 31 refers to the competence of the members (Mazanis) or Associates as suggested by Mr. Pangam, it is pretty clear that this Article declares that the Mahazans shall be competent to vote at elections to constitute the Managing Committee. 112. Be that as it may, even if we hold that Article 31 refers to the competence of the members (Mazanis) or Associates as suggested by Mr. Pangam, it is pretty clear that this Article declares that the Mahazans shall be competent to vote at elections to constitute the Managing Committee. 112. Therefore, based on the expression' acts of Management,' as it appears in Article 6 of the bye-laws, we do not think that such competence of the Mahazans can be diluted or watered down by declaring that the so-called non-Goan Mahazans are incompetent to vote at the elections to the Managing Committee of the temple. The Legislature must be deemed to be aware of the bye-laws approved by the Government before the Devasthan Regulations were enacted and entered force. Yet, the mahazans were declared competent to vote at elections to constitute managing committees. There are separate provisions to determine the incapability of the mahazans in the Devasthan Regulations. 113. In the present case, there is no dispute that the descendants of the foreigner Mahazans, wherever they may reside, are Mahazans of the temple and shall enjoy preeminence and prerogative of Mahazans with local nationality (meaning thereby Mahazans having permanent residence in Goa). Once this position is accepted, in terms of Article 31 of the Devasthan Regulation, such Mahazans, wherever they reside, will have the right, at least, to vote for the offices of the members of the Managing Committee. In this matter, we are not concerned with the right to be voted for the offices of the Managing Committee; therefore, we refrain from making any observations on that issue. 114. However, the provisions of Article 31 of the Devasthan Regulation are pretty clear in that it shall be incumbent on the Mahazans, or at least the Mahazans will be competent to vote for the offices of the members of the Managing Committee and their substitutes. This right provided by the Devasthan Regulation, a legislative instrument, cannot be watered down or diluted by the bye-laws of 1900. This is more so because Article 6 of the byelaws does not even refer to the right of the foreigner Mahazans to vote. The interpretation suggested by Mr. Kantak, Mr. Bhobe, and Mr. Pangam might render Article 6 of the bye-laws ultra vires the Devasthan Regulation. Thus, an interpretation that saves this bye-law from being declared ultra vires will have to be preferred. 115. The interpretation suggested by Mr. Kantak, Mr. Bhobe, and Mr. Pangam might render Article 6 of the bye-laws ultra vires the Devasthan Regulation. Thus, an interpretation that saves this bye-law from being declared ultra vires will have to be preferred. 115. In Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees' Union (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering whether an employee would lose his right as a trade union member due to the cessation of employment. The Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court held that no such inference could be drawn. However, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge. It held that no sooner an employee ceases to be employed, he loses his right to continue as a trade union member. The trade union, therefore, appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 116. The Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 6(e) of the Trade Union Act, 1926, and clause 5 of the trade union's Constitution. It held that there was no specific provision either in the Act or in the Constitution of the union to provide for the automatic cessation of the trade union membership upon an employee's cessation of his employment. The Court held that the Constitution of a trade union is not required to be construed as a statute. It deserves to be construed broadly and liberally. Unless clearly stipulated otherwise, the Act and the Constitution of the trade union should be interpreted to advance the interest of the trade union and its members. Membership of a trade union is a valuable right that can be taken away only within clear parameters of the Act and the Constitution of the trade union. The Court finally held that given the provisions of the Constitution of the trade union and in the absence of any provisions under the trade unions Act to the contrary, on cessation of employment, it cannot be held that the employee would cease to be a member of the trade union. 117. Thus, without an explicit prohibition on voting rights, the same cannot be read into Article 6 of the bye-laws. Article 31 of the Devasthan Regulations is quite clear, and the explicit wordings of Article 31 cannot be set at naught by reading into Article 6 of the bye-laws some words which do not even find a place in the said Article. Even the context does not call for reading such words in the bye-laws. 118. Article 31 of the Devasthan Regulations is quite clear, and the explicit wordings of Article 31 cannot be set at naught by reading into Article 6 of the bye-laws some words which do not even find a place in the said Article. Even the context does not call for reading such words in the bye-laws. 118. The rulings in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), 63 Moons Technologies Limited (supra) & Raghu Hari Dalmia & Ors. (supra) do not support the respondents' contention that the non-Goan Mahazans, by voting for elections to constitute the Managing Committee, are themselves taking part in the Management of the Committee. The status of Mahazans is not akin to the status of equity shareholders in a company. The statements in the said decisions must be read in the context and not de hors. The bye-laws impose no specific bar, and such bar cannot be read or deduced from the expression 'acts of Management,' also because such a construction might conflict with the statutory provisions. 119. Mr. D. Pangam submitted that the non-Goan Mahazans could be conceded rights to vote on several subjects referred to in Article 31 of the Devasthan Regulations except the right to vote and to be voted for the offices of the members of the Managing Committee and their substitutes. However, he was unable to make good his submission except for contending that otherwise, there was no good reason for the Portuguese Legislature to deal with the subject of the right to vote and to be voted for the offices of the members of the Managing Committee and their substitutes separately in Article 31(3) when in fact Article 31(1) had already granted the Mahazans the right to discuss and vote in all their meetings. 120. In our opinion, the above reasoning is too slender a basis to jump to a conclusion of such proportions. The Legislature wished to leave no ambiguity regarding the rights of the Mahazans to vote for the offices of the members of the Managing Committee and their substitutes. Therefore the subject may have been treated separately. Suppose Mr. Pangam's submissions were to be accepted. In that case, apart from Article 31(1), there may have been no necessity to have any further sub-clauses in Article 31 because Article 31(1) was wide enough to include practically everything. The very structure of Article 31 does not support the contention advanced. Therefore the subject may have been treated separately. Suppose Mr. Pangam's submissions were to be accepted. In that case, apart from Article 31(1), there may have been no necessity to have any further sub-clauses in Article 31 because Article 31(1) was wide enough to include practically everything. The very structure of Article 31 does not support the contention advanced. Therefore, based on such reasoning, we do not think that the non-Goan Mahazans can be deprived of their right to vote guaranteed by Article 31(3) of the Devasthan Regulations. 121. The question of whether bye-laws under the Devasthan Regulations can impose additional qualifications and disqualifications for a Mahazan exercising his right to vote does not seriously arise in this matter because Articles 6 & 9 of the bye-laws, in our opinion, impose no disqualification on a non- Goan Mahazans from voting at elections to constitute the Managing Committee. If such disqualifications were to be explicitly imposed, only then would the occasion arise to determine whether the imposition of such disqualification was permissible, given that no such disqualification was contemplated under the Devasthan Regulations. Therefore, the three decisions that Mr. Pangam relied on are of no assistance in resolving the issue raised in this petition. 122. The Managing Committee cannot simply resile from its earlier position by claiming that there can be no estoppel against the law. The Managing Committee, at least, in its reply before the Tribunal, had pleaded facts, including the fact that the names of the non-Goan Mahazans had been included in the catalogue and the list of capable Mahazans after following due process and verification. There is virtually no dispute that for the last 25 to 30 years, the non-Goan Mahazans were not only included in the catalogue of Mahazans but also in the list of capable Mahazans thereby entitling them to vote for elections to the Managing Committee of the said temple. 123. None of the parties have placed any record about non- Goan Mahazan being prevented from voting at such elections to constitute the Managing Committee of the said temple at any time before the liberation of Goa or even after that. Thus, the position that prevailed for all these years could not have been reversed by the Managing Committee or its Clerk based on such a belated interpretation of Article 6 or Article 9 of the bye-laws of 1900. Thus, the position that prevailed for all these years could not have been reversed by the Managing Committee or its Clerk based on such a belated interpretation of Article 6 or Article 9 of the bye-laws of 1900. This is not just a case of some inadvertence as claimed by the Managing Committee in its returns. Instead, this appears to be an unfortunate attempt by the Managing Committee and its Clerk to reverse a settled position for no legitimate reason. 124. The Managing Committee, after all these years, has virtually declared the non-Goan Mahazans as "incapable Mahazans." Articles 23 and 26 of the Devasthan Regulations may empower a Managing Committee to determine whether Mahazan enrolled in a catalogue of Mahazans has become incapable. The wordings of Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations speak about the elimination of 'those who may become incapable .' However, no case is made out to even remotely suggest that any non-Goan Mahazans had become incapable since their enrolment in the catalogue of Mahazans. 125. Be that as it may, the issue as to whether any of the Mahazans have become incapable has to be determined by reference to Article 32 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. 126. Article 32 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933 reads as follows: "Article 32 - The following persons shall be forbidden to take part in the deliberations of the body of members (mazania) as they are incapable: 1) The minors not emancipated; 2) The interdicted, debtors of the body of members (mazania) or/of associations, after being judged as such by an administrative or judicial verdict; 3) Those who may have lawsuits or disputes with the body in the matter relating to the same lawsuits; 4) Those who may be judge a verdict made definitive, as usurpers of the fields or lands of the temples;'' 127. In our opinion, none of the predicates in clauses (1), (2), (3) & (4) of Article 32 of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933 are even remotely attracted to the non-Goan Mahazans. However, Mr. Kantak, the learned Counsel for Raunak and Nishad, submitted that the non-Goan Mahazans had been interdicted by Article 6 of the by-laws of 1900 and, therefore, have become incapable Mahazans in terms of Article 32(2) of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. 128. In our opinion, Mr. Kantak's above contention is too tenuous to deserve acceptance. Fortunately, even Mr. Bhobe and Mr. Kantak, the learned Counsel for Raunak and Nishad, submitted that the non-Goan Mahazans had been interdicted by Article 6 of the by-laws of 1900 and, therefore, have become incapable Mahazans in terms of Article 32(2) of the Devasthan Regulations, 1933. 128. In our opinion, Mr. Kantak's above contention is too tenuous to deserve acceptance. Fortunately, even Mr. Bhobe and Mr. Pangam did not go this far. Though the Devasthan Regulations do not define the expression "interdict," there is a particular meaning assigned to this term in the dictionaries and the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. This 2012 Act is relevant because it consolidates and amends the law of intestate and testamentary succession, notarial law, and the laws relating to partition of an inheritance and matters connected therewith. All these matters were earlier governed by the corresponding Portuguese laws, which also referred to the concept of "interdict". 129. Section 2 (j) of the 2012 Act defines "interdict" means a person who is declared to be incompetent to manage his assets by an order of the Court. Even the dictionary meanings on the same lines do not even remotely assist the interpretation suggested by Mr. Kantak. Besides, the bye-laws do not interdict the non-Goan mahazans from voting as urged. 130. Thus, it is clear that none of the non-Goan Mahazans could have been declared "incapable Mahazans" simply because they may not have had a permanent residence in Goa. Further, what is most important is that the Managing Committee's orders declaring some of the non-Goan Mahazans as incapable came only on 09.022022. If they were legal, such orders would, at the highest, apply only to the 277 mahazans who filed objections and not all the 2352 mahazans. But the Clerk of the Committee purporting to exercise powers under Article 25 of the Devasthan Regulations on 31.12.20.21 itself proceeded to delete 2352 non- Goan Mahazans from the list of capable Mahazans. This, the Clerk did by ignoring the catalogue under Article 23 of the Devasthan Regulations, which Mr. Bhobe admitted, was intact, as of 31.12.2021 or even to date, and includes all these so-called non-Goan mahazans. 131. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that the impugned decision, even or merits, is unsustainable and warrants interference. 132. Mr. Mulgaonkar and Mr. Bhobe admitted, was intact, as of 31.12.2021 or even to date, and includes all these so-called non-Goan mahazans. 131. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that the impugned decision, even or merits, is unsustainable and warrants interference. 132. Mr. Mulgaonkar and Mr. Bhobe urged this Court to keep in mind the historical perspective when interpreting the provisions of the Devasthan Regulations 1933 and the bye-laws of 1900. 133. The Managing Committee, in its affidavit, in paragraph 26, admitted that the ascendants of the petitioners shifted outside Goa because of the inquisition of the Portuguese in the region of Mathgramkars (now Margao) in the year 1565. However, after all these years, the Managing Committee has produced nothing on record to establish that the ascendants of the petitioners, who shifted outside Goa because of the inquisition by the Portuguese in 1565, had no role to play in the establishment of the said temple. This point was not even urged by Mr. Bhobe or, for that matter, any other Counsel. The pleadings, however, acknowledge the exodus of Gaud Saraswat Hindu Brahmins from Goa to the neighboring areas due to inquisition and religious persecution. 134. Alan Machado (Prabhu), in his book "Goa's Inquisition - facts-fiction-factoids," has a chapter (Chapter 33) entitled "Emigration and the Inquisition'. He writes that in the 1560s, several influential Brahmans who chose to resist coercive conversion laws were expelled from Goa. They were given short notice to dispose of their property and leave. The 1801 census reveals that lesser privileged Konkani speakers accompanied the exiles. 135. The Eminent journalist-writer Chandrakant Keni in his book entitled "The Saraswats," has a chapter (Chapter 7) entitled "Exodus from Goa." He writes that around the 1560s, the Portuguese gave Saraswat Brahmins in Goa two alternatives either convert to Christianity and stay in Goa or leave within a month. Most may have chosen the second alternative during this period and migrated to South Kanara. 136. Another eminent historian, A. K. Priolkar, in his book "The Goan Inquisition - The Terrible Tribunal for the East' writes about the banishment of the Hindus. Most may have chosen the second alternative during this period and migrated to South Kanara. 136. Another eminent historian, A. K. Priolkar, in his book "The Goan Inquisition - The Terrible Tribunal for the East' writes about the banishment of the Hindus. Some extracts from this chapter are quoted below:- "On April 2, 1560, the viceroy D. Constantino de Branganca ordered that a large number of Brahmins, whose names were included in the rolls appended to the order should be thrown out of the island of Goa and the lands and fortresses of the Portuguese king. Only those who were natives of Salsete and Bardez were permitted to return to their villages. Others were banished under pain of their being made prisoners on the galleys without remission and losing all their property, one half to the accuser and the other to whatever purpose the viceroy may consider appropriate. They were given one month within which to dispose of their property. On June 8 of the same year was issued similar order banishing persons of the Goldsmith caste who had their families and properties outside the Portuguese territories unless they brought back their families and property within a period of 10 days.'' "The result of such orders was that the Hindus migrated to the neighbouring lands en masse, business establishments were closed down, and there was an acute dearth of agricultural labour, artisans and mechanics.'' 137. Thus, if the matter is considered from the historical perspective, it does appear that the Mahazans, who are now referred to as the 'foreigner Mahazans' or the 'non-Goan Mahazans,' have their roots and deities in Goa. However, due to inquisition and religious persecution, they may have immigrated to the neighboring areas that did not form a part of the Portuguese territories in India (Esta Do India). After 60 years since the liberation and in the absence of explicit provisions in the Devasthan Regulations of 1900, it will not be proper to say that the descendants of such Mahazan will not have a right to even vote for elections to the Managing Committee. 138. The Managing Committee's plea of "inadvertence," for the last 3 to 4 decades in including the names of non-Goan Mahazans in the category of Mahazans and the list of capable Mahazans also cannot be accepted. The Managing Committee cannot attribute any inadvertence to the several Managing Committees that preceded it. 138. The Managing Committee's plea of "inadvertence," for the last 3 to 4 decades in including the names of non-Goan Mahazans in the category of Mahazans and the list of capable Mahazans also cannot be accepted. The Managing Committee cannot attribute any inadvertence to the several Managing Committees that preceded it. Even this Managing Committee, by its order dated 10.02.2021, expressly rejected Raunak/Nishad's interpretation of the bye-laws and the Devasthan Regulation and dismissed their application seeking deletion of the names of the non-Goan Mahazans. The General Body endorsed Managing Committee's decision. This very Managing Committee filed a detailed reply before the Tribunal on defending the inclusion of the names of the so-called non-Goan mahazans in the catalouge of mahazans and the list of capable mahazans. After all this, the Managing Committee cannot plead "inadvertence", in answer to the petitioners' plea of estoppel. 139. The circumstance that the names of non-Goan Mahazans were included in the catalogue of Mahazans and the list of capable Mahazans for over 3 to 4 decades is a circumstance that assumes relevance considering the doctrine of contemporanea expositio. The usage or practice developed under a statute is indicative of the meaning ascribed to its words by contemporary opinion. In the case of an ancient statute, it is an admissible external aid to its construction. (Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege). 140. Besides, the petitioners have placed on record bye-laws enacted by neighboring temples like Shree Mahalasa Devasthan, Shree Lakshmi Narasimha Devasthan, and Shree Kamakshi Devasthan made between 1900 and 1933, which also contain explicit provisions that permit the so-called "foreigner Mahazans' from voting at elections to Managing Committees but restricts their right to contest elections to Managing Committees. 141. Mr. Kantak's contention based upon particular surnames also deserves no acceptance. Over the years, surnames have changed mainly due to the vocations or the titles bestowed. Even the respondents Mr. Kantak represents do not trace their names to the bye-laws of 1900. No such contention was correctly raised on behalf of the Managing Committee. The Regulations and the bye-laws refer to the four gotras and their vangods. Even Mr. Kantak did not urge that the so-called non-Goan mahazans do not fulfill the gotra criterion as prescribed. Incidentally, no objection based on the surname was ever raised by Raunak and Nishad in their complaint to the Managing Committee. 142. The Regulations and the bye-laws refer to the four gotras and their vangods. Even Mr. Kantak did not urge that the so-called non-Goan mahazans do not fulfill the gotra criterion as prescribed. Incidentally, no objection based on the surname was ever raised by Raunak and Nishad in their complaint to the Managing Committee. 142. For all the above reasons, we allow this petition and make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (d) & (e) of the petition. The relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) & (f) is already worked out because elections have been held though the ballot boxes have been sealed. 143. The Prayer clauses (a), (b), (d) & (e) read as follows: "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to after perusing the legality, validity, correctness and propriety of the List of Capable Mahajans dated 15.01.2022 of Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan prepared by the Respondent no.2 in pursuance to its notice dated 14.01.2022 quash and set aside the same as regards the deletion/non addition of the names of the Petitioners and other similarly situated persons. (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to act on the representation dated 18.01.2022 made by the Petitioners, and reject the List of Capable Mahajans dated 15.01.2022 of Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan prepared by the Respondent No.2 in pursuance to its notice dated 14.01.2022. (d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order or direction, precluding the Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 or Respondent No.3 from finalising the List of Capable Mahajans of Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan in pursuance to the List of Capable Mahajans dated 15.01.2022 of Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan prepared by the Respondent No.2 in pursuance to its notice dated 14.01.2022. (e) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direct, restraining the Respondent No.1 from publishing in the official Gazette the List of Capable Mahajans dated 15.01.2022 of Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan prepared by the Respondent No.2 in pursuance to its notice dated 14.01.2022 and/or from acting in furtherance to the List of capable Mahajans dated 15.01.2022 of Shree Ramnath Damodar Saunsthan prepared by the Respondent No.2 in pursuance to its notice dated 14.01.2022.'' 144. Further, we direct the Mamlatdar/Administrator, who has custody of the sealed and segregated ballot boxes, to open the seals, count the votes and declare the results in the presence of the Petitioners or their representatives, the members of the Managing Committee, and Raunak/Nishad, if they choose to remain present. Notice to the learned Counsel for these parties will be sufficient notice. The Mamlatdar/Administrator must maintain a record of the segregated votes. 145. The above exercise must be completed within seven days from today. Further, within a maximum of five days from the declaration of results, the members of the present Managing Committee should hand over charge to the newly elected Managing Committee members. 146. The rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.