9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Commissioner for Settlements and Charitable Endowments to exercise functions under the Madras Act of 1951. 2. Validity of the demands made by the Commissioner for payment of fees. 3. Application of the Madras Act of 1951 to the South Kanara District and its compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the Commissioner for Settlements and Charitable Endowments to Exercise Functions under the Madras Act of 1951: The appellants argued that the notification authorizing the Commissioner for Settlements and Charitable Endowments for Mysore to exercise the functions of the Commissioner under the Madras Act of 1951 lacked legal authority. They contended that the Commissioner being a Corporation Sole, only the Central Government was competent to issue such a notification under section 122 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The court, however, clarified that the power of the body corporate to function under the parent Act is not conditional on the issuance of directions by the Central Government. The court found that the Commissioner's authority to function remained unimpaired and could be exercised as contemplated by the Act, regardless of whether directions were issued by the Central Government. 2. Validity of the Demands Made by the Commissioner for Payment of Fees: The appellants contested the demands made by the Commissioner on the ground that they were excessive and bore no relationship to the services rendered by the Department. They argued that there was no quid pro quo between the services rendered and the fees charged. The court examined the affidavit of Shri Annaji Rao, which detailed the services provided and the costs involved. It was noted that the total demand made on all religious institutions for fees during the years 1957 to 1964 amounted to Rs. 8,80,389/-, while the allocable expense for the services was Rs. 7,54,160/-. The court concluded that there was a fair correspondence between the fee charged and the cost of services rendered to the fee payers as a class. The court held that the necessity for establishing quid pro quo between the fee and the cost of services rendered is a matter that does not require mathematical precision but a general correlation. Consequently, the court found no substantial prejudice to the appellants due to the non-supply of detailed information sought by them and upheld the validity of the demands. 3. Application of the Madras Act of 1951 to the South Kanara District and its Compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution: The appellants argued that the application of the Madras Act of 1951 to the South Kanara District alone, while similar institutions in other areas of Karnataka were not subjected to the same law, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court considered the historical context in which the Madras Act of 1951 continued to apply to South Kanara District after the reorganization of states. It was noted that the differential treatment arising from the application of laws continued in different regions of the same reorganized State did not immediately attract the clause of the Constitution prohibiting discrimination. The court referred to several precedents, including the Bhaiyalal Shukla case, which upheld the validity of geographical classifications based on historical reasons. However, the court also acknowledged that the continued application of unequal laws for an indefinite period could eventually become unconstitutional. The court expressed hope that the Karnataka Legislature would act promptly to remove the inequality by enacting comprehensive legislation applicable to all temples and Mutts in Karnataka. The court refrained from declaring the law inapplicable to South Kanara District immediately but warned that failure to address the inequality could result in a successful constitutional challenge in the future. Separate Judgment by Shinghal J.: Shinghal J. concurred with the dismissal of the appeals but disagreed with the view that the continued application of the Madras Act of 1951 to South Kanara District was "perilously near the periphery of unconstitutionality." He emphasized the importance of proper pleadings and evidence to establish a claim of discrimination under Article 14. He referred to the Bhopal Sugar Industries case, which held that mere efflux of time does not automatically raise the presumption of discrimination. Shinghal J. concluded that the appellants had not furnished the necessary particulars to support their plea of discrimination and that the continued application of the Madras Act of 1951 could not be deemed unconstitutional solely due to the lapse of time. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the competence of the Commissioner, the validity of the demands made for payment of fees, and the continued application of the Madras Act of 1951 to the South Kanara District. However, the court urged the Karnataka Legislature to address the inequality by enacting appropriate legislation within a reasonable timeframe.
|
