1965 (2) TMI 124 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification issued under Section 64(4) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.
2. Whether the trusteeship of the Rajan Kattalai is a right of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the impugned notification was issued without giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
4. Whether the proceedings under Section 64(4) are quasi-judicial in nature.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification Issued Under Section 64(4):
The Governor of Madras issued a notification on August 4, 1956, extending a previous notification concerning the Sri Thiyagarajaswami Temple for five years. The appellant challenged this notification's validity, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The High Court rejected the appellant's pleas, but the Supreme Court found that the notification was issued without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court quashed the notification, emphasizing that any decision to cancel or extend such notifications must involve a fair hearing for the affected parties.

2. Trusteeship as a Right of Property Under Article 19(1)(f):
The appellant argued that the hereditary trusteeship of the Rajan Kattalai is a right of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and Section 64 of the Act empowers the State to take away this right arbitrarily. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court did not delve into this issue in detail, as the arguments presented in the appeal covered a narrower ground focusing on procedural fairness.

3. Opportunity to Show Cause and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the impugned notification was issued without giving him an opportunity to show cause, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court acknowledged that the proceedings under Section 64(4) are quasi-judicial and require a fair hearing. However, the High Court did not grant relief, reasoning that the notification would soon expire. The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, noting that the appellant had indeed raised the issue of not being heard in his affidavit-in-rejoinder, and the notification's life was statutorily extended beyond the High Court's judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the appellant should have been given a chance to be heard before the notification was issued.

4. Quasi-Judicial Nature of Proceedings Under Section 64(4):
The Supreme Court examined whether the proceedings under Section 64(4) are quasi-judicial. The respondent State argued that while initial notifications under Section 64(3) require compliance with natural justice principles, decisions under Section 64(4) do not. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the process of deciding whether to cancel or extend a notification under Section 64(4) involves similar considerations as under Section 64(3). Both decisions impact the trustee's rights and require a fair hearing. The Court emphasized that the nature and effect of orders under both sections are similar, necessitating adherence to natural justice principles.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the notification issued by the respondent State on August 4, 1956. The appellant was entitled to costs throughout the proceedings. The judgment underscored the necessity of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in quasi-judicial proceedings affecting trusteeship rights.