2015 (11) TMI 1839 - HC - Indian Laws

Requirement of Board of Control or not - HELD THAT - The powers intended to be conferred on the Board of Control would unduly interfere with the eights of the Temple Committee. In the Conjeevaram scheme the Board of Control was held necessary because the institution was not subject to the control of the Temple Committee. I am clearly of opinion that, all provisions in the scheme relating to the Board of Control should be omitted - Undoubtedly the Thengalai rights are predominant in this temple; the Subordinate Judge was therefore right in providing for the appointment of an additional Theugalai trustee. No serious objection was taken by any of the contending parties for the inclusion in the Board of. Trustees of a Smartha and Madhwa. It is to be hoped that their presence would tend to compose the differences between the two rival sects of Vaishnavas. We do not think that the provision for the appointment of the Saivitc and Madhwa trustees by the Court is necessary. The Committee should have the same power with regard to them as they have with reference to the other three trustees. As regards Clause 12, in the view that we have taken about the office of the treasurer and having regard to the representations that have been made regarding the funds of the Devasthanam we are of opinion that instead of a treasurer, the trustees should be directed to appoint a cashier on a salary of ₹ 75-0-0 per mensem. As was done with reference to the Conjeevaram scheme we think liberty should be given to any of the trustees or any member of the Committee or to the 1st plaintiff in this case to move the Court for such alterations in the scheme as seem desirable in the light of the experience that may have been gained of its working. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to frame a scheme for temple management.
2. Powers and duties of the Temple Committee.
3. Validity and necessity of the proposed scheme.
4. Role and appointment of trustees.
5. Financial management and oversight.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Frame a Scheme for Temple Management:
The primary issue was whether the Civil Court had the authority to frame a scheme for the management of the temples at Srirangam, given the existence of the Temple Committee under Act XX of 1863. The Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to frame a scheme under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, despite the statutory powers of the Temple Committee. The judgment emphasized that the extensive powers conferred on the Board of Revenue were intended to be exercised by the Temple Committees, and the Court should not impede these powers. However, the Court also recognized that it could assist the Committee by introducing necessary changes that the Committee could not implement on its own.

2. Powers and Duties of the Temple Committee:
The Court analyzed the statutory powers and duties of the Temple Committee, which were derived from Regulation VII of 1817 and Act XX of 1863. These powers included general superintendence, appointment of trustees, and ensuring the proper appropriation of endowments. The Court noted that the Committee's powers should not be unduly fettered and that the remaining members of the Committee should be able to act during a vacancy. The Court disagreed with previous decisions that suggested the Committee's powers were suspended by vacancies among its members.

3. Validity and Necessity of the Proposed Scheme:
The Court examined whether the scheme framed by the Subordinate Judge should be approved. It was determined that while the Court could not interfere with the statutory functions of the Committee, it could frame a scheme conditional on legislative sanction. The Court cited various legal precedents to support its authority to introduce changes to assist the Committee, provided these changes did not unduly interfere with the Committee's powers.

4. Role and Appointment of Trustees:
The Court addressed the contention that the Temple Committee had no power over the Srirangam Devasthanam due to the existence of a hereditary trustee. It was concluded that the temple was subject to the Temple Committee's jurisdiction, as established by previous legal decisions and the provisions of Act XX of 1863. The Court also discussed the necessity of appointing additional trustees and ensuring that trustees held office for a limited term to facilitate better management.

5. Financial Management and Oversight:
The Court emphasized the importance of proper financial management and oversight. It mandated that the trustees prepare an annual budget and submit it to the Committee for approval. Additionally, the Court required the appointment of a paid officer to handle financial duties and insisted on regular audits to ensure transparency and accountability. The scheme also included provisions for publishing the balance sheet and making financial information accessible to the public.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the management of the Devasthanam should remain with the trustees, subject to the statutory superintendence of the Temple Committee. The proposed Board of Control was disallowed, but the Court enabled the Committee to appoint additional trustees and introduced measures for better financial management. The scheme was to be revised accordingly, with no order as to costs in the Court. The judgment highlighted the Court's role in ensuring that the statutory powers of the Temple Committee were respected while also providing necessary assistance to improve the management of the temple affairs.