9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 52(1)(f) 2. Validity of Section 55 3. Validity of Section 76(1) & (2) 4. Validity of Sections 80, 81, and 82 Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Section 52(1)(f): Section 52(1)(f) authorizes the Commissioner or interested persons, with the Commissioner's consent, to institute a suit for removing the trustee of a Math for wasting funds or applying them for purposes unconnected with the institution. The Court examined the position of a Mathadhipati concerning the property of the Math, noting that a Mahant is not a mere manager or custodian but has certain proprietary rights. However, these rights are limited by the obligation to act as a trustee. The Court held that Section 52(1)(f) does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the Mahant under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. It merely ensures that the funds and properties are used for the purposes of the Math and not for personal luxury or unrelated purposes. The provision is in the interest of the general public and is reasonable. 2. Validity of Section 55: Section 55, as amended, requires the Mahant to keep regular accounts of 'pathakanikas' (gifts made to him as the head of the Math) and to spend them according to the customs and usages of the institution. The Court found that this does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the Mahant's rights. The obligation to maintain accounts and spend the gifts in accordance with institutional customs is consistent with the Mahant's position as a trustee, even though he has a beneficial interest in the gifts. The Court clarified that Section 55 does not apply to personal gifts to the Mahant. 3. Validity of Section 76(1) & (2): Section 76(1) and (2) were challenged on the grounds that the contributions levied were in the nature of a tax, which the State Legislature was not competent to impose. The Court noted that the defects in the original section were remedied by the amendment, which specified that contributions are payable to the Commissioner for services rendered and for defraying related expenses. The amounts collected are earmarked for a separate fund and not for the Consolidated Fund of the State. The Court found no reliable evidence to support the claim that there was no correlation between the expenses incurred and the contributions collected. The levy was deemed a fee, not a tax, as it was related to the services rendered to the religious institutions. 4. Validity of Sections 80, 81, and 82: Sections 80 and 81 establish a separate fund for the administration of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, and Section 82 validates contributions levied under the previous Act. The Court upheld these sections, noting that the Legislature has the power to enact retrospective legislation and to levy fees for services related to the maintenance and supervision of religious institutions. The retrospective validation of contributions as fees was within the Legislature's competence. Conclusion: The Court upheld the validity of Sections 52(1)(f), 55, 76(1) & (2), 80, 81, and 82 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, as amended, finding them intra vires and reasonable. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
