9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (5) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant then filed suit No. 21 of 1939 on the file of the District Judge, Anantapur for getting the said scheme set aside. His suit substantially failed, because the District Court was persuaded to make only a few minor modifications in the scheme subject to which the scheme was confirmed. That decision was taken in appeal by the predecessor of the appellant to the High Court of Madras (A.S. No. 269 of 1945). During the pendency of the said appeal, the appellant s predecessor died, and the appellant then brought himself on the record as the legal representative of his deceased predecessor. Ultimately, the appeal was withdrawn and, therefore, dismissed. Though a scheme had been formulated by the Board under s. 63 of the said Act, apparently no effective step was taken to take over the actual management of the Mutt and its endowments. The said management continued as before and the fact that an Executive Officer had been appointed under the scheme made no difference to the actual administration of the Mutt. It was on the 5th April, 1952, that the appellant was served with a memorandum asking him to hand over the charge of all the properties of the Mutt to the Executive Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving been framed as early as 1939 under the relevant provisions of the earlier Act which was valid when it was enacted, could not be challenged on the ground that some of its provisions contravened the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens of this country under Art. 19. Certain other contentions were raised before the appellate Bench by the appellant and they were rejected. It is, however, not necessary to refer to the said contentions, because they have not been argued before us. Having taken the view that the scheme when it was framed was valid, the appellate Bench reversed the decision of the single Judge, alowed the respondent s appeal and directed that the writ petition filed by the appellant should be dismissed. It is against this, decision of the Division Bench that the appellant has come to this Court with a certificate granted by the said High Court. Before dealing with the points which have been raised before us by Mr. Sastri on behalf of the appellant, we may briefly indicate the nature of the scheme which has been framed under the relevant provisions of the earlier Act. This scheme opens with the statement that the Board was satisfied that in the interests o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgues that the earlier Act has been revealed by the latter Act XIX of 1951, and according to him, it is necessary to consider whether the present scheme is consistent with the appropriate and relevant provisions of this latter Act. This argument is based on the provisions contained in s. 103(d) of the latter Act. This section provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act No. 11 of 1927, all schemes settled or modified by a Court of law under the said Act or under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall be deemed to have been settled or modified by the Court under this Act and shall have effect accordingly. The argument is that though the present scheme was framed under the provisions of the earlier Act. it must now be deemed to be a scheme which has been settled or modified by the Court under this latter Act, and so, it is necessary to enquire whether all the provisions of the scheme are consistent with the material provisions of the latter Act. If it is found that any of the said provisions are inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the latter Act, they must be modified so as to make them consistent with the said provisions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the earlier Act only if the said action was consistent with the relevant provisions of the latter Act, it has so provided. The same type of provision is made by s. 103(f), (g) and (h). If we examine s. 103(d) in the light of these other provisions. it would be clear that the question of the consistency or otherwise of the schemes to which s. 103(d) applies, is treated as irrelevant, because no reference is made to the said aspect of the schemes. In other words, the schemes to which s. 103(d) applies have to be deemed to be settled or modified under the provisions of the latter Act without examining whether all the provisions of the said schemes are necessarily justified by, or consistent with. the provisions of this latter Act; and that is why we do not think Mr. Sastri is right in contending that the deeming clause prescribed by s. 103(d) necessitates an examination of the said schemes before they are allowed to be continued as though they were settled or modified under the latter Act. This does not, however, mean that there is no provision prescribed by the latter Act for the modification of such ,schemes. Section 62(3)(a) specifically provides that any scheme for the admini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case, a partnership firm known as Lallamal Hardeodas Cotton Spinning Mill Company of which the petitioner was, a partner. used to carry on the business of production and supply of cotton yam. When it was found that the Mill could be run only at a loss, it was closed on 19th March, 1949. Thereafter, on the 21st July,. 1949, the Government of U.P. passed an Order purporting to exercise its .authority under s. 3(f) of the U.P. Industrial -Disputes Act, 1947, by which one of the partners of the firm was appointed as authorised controller of the undertaking. The said order directed the said authorised controller tO take over possession of the :Mill to the exclusion of the other partners, and run it subject to the general supervision of the District Magistrate, Aligarh In 1952, the Union of India passed an order under s. 3(4) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, appointing the same person as an authorised controller, under the provisions of that section, and issued a direction to him to run. the said undertaking to the exclusion of all the other Farmers. It was then that the petitioner moved this Court by writ petition under Art. 32 and challenged the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was appointed as early as 1939. If the Executive Officer could not take over the actual administration of the Mutt and its properties, it was partly because the appellant has continuously challenged the implementation of the scheme by legal proceedings and partly because he has otherwise obstructed the said implementation. But it is clear that when the scheme was framed and a challenge made by the appellant to its validity failed in courts of law. his property rights had been taken away. The fact that the order was not implemented does not make any difference to this legal, position. If Mr. Sastri s argument were right, all such schemes, though implemented and enforced, may still be open to challenge on the ground that they contravened the Matadhipati s fundamental rights under Art. 19. Such a plea does not appear to have ever been raised and, in our opinion, cannot be validly raised for the simple reason that the further damental rights are not retrospective in their operation. The observations on which Mr. Sastri relies must be read in he light of the relevant fact to which we have just referred. The deprivation of the petitioner s property rights was brought about by invalid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
