9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (3) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies ago and is one of the renowned Maths in India. Hundreds of Sadhus visit the Math throughout the year and it is the duty of the Mahant as its religious head to provide the visiting Sadhus with food and shelter and to perform all religions duties with regard to the celebration of Hindu festivals, propagation of the cult of Shri Swami Hathiramji and performance of other religious functions. It is alleged that Mahant Chettandoss, the previous incumbent died on March 18, 1962. On March 24, 1962 the Commissioner took charge of the Math and its properties under Section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Act No. 19 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Repealed Act . The petitioner filed a suit on March 26, 1962 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor for a declaration that he was the rightful successor. The Commissioner was impleaded as a party to the suit. He also filed a revisional application under Section 92 of the repealed Act to the State Government. The Government disposed of the revisional application on June 5, 1962. It appointed the petitioner as the interim Mahant subject to certain conditions which need not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Math which could only be done in the manner provided by Section 52 of the repealed Act. 3. The Act received the assent of the President on December 6, 1966 and was enforced with effect from January 27, 1967. On May 30, 1967 the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for declaring the present impugned provisions of the Act as ultra vires. That petition was dismissed in limine as premature. An appeal to the Letters Patent bench failed. On coming to know that certain orders were going to be passed against the petitioner whereby charges on various matters were to be preferred and an inquiry made and that the suspension of the petitioner from Mahantship was going to be ordered, the present petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in October 1968. In this petition, apart from challenging the provisions of the Act a case of mala fide action has been sought to be made out against the respondent. In the order which was made by the Government on November 18, 1968, as many as 14 charges have been referred against the petitioner and his suspension has been duty ordered. The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der exonerate the mathadhipathi or trustee, or remove him. Every such order shall state the charge framed against the mathadhipathi or the trustee, his explanation and the finding on such charge together with the reasons therefor; Provided that in the case of a math or specific endowment attached thereto whose annual income exceeds rupees one lakh, the order of removal passed by the Commissioner against the mathadhipati or trustee shall not take effect unless it is confirmed by the Government, (3) Pending the passing of an order under Sub-section (2) the Commissioner may suspend the mathadhipathi or the trustee. (4) (a) Any mathadhipathi or trustee aggrieved by an enquiry in this behalf that an arrangement for the (2) may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of such order, institute a suit in the court against such order. (b) An appeal shall lie to the High Court within ninety days from the date of a decree or order of the court in such suit. 47. (1) Where a temporary vacancy occurs in the office of the mathadhipathi and there is dispute in regard to the right of succession to such office, or where the mathadhipathi is a minor and has no guardian fit and will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du Religious Endowments Act 1927 had taken action to frame a scheme for the administration of the affairs of the math. The challenge in the courts was confined to the Constitutional validity of the repealed Act. B.K. Mukherjea, J., (as he then was) dealt exhaustively with the rights of a Mahant to hold office as well as enjoy the property of the institution. The following observations at pp. 1019, 1020 are noteworthy : As said above, the ingredients of both office and property, of duties and personal interest are blended together in the rights of a Mahant and the Mahant has the right to enjoy this property or beneficial interest so long as he is entitled to hold his office. To take away this beneficial interest and leave him merely to the-discharge of his duties would be to destroy his character as a Mahant altogether. It is true that the beneficial interest which he enjoys is appurtenant to his duties and as he is in charge of a public institution, reasonable restrictions can always be placed upon his rights in the interest of the public. But the restrictions would cease to be reasonable if they are calculated to make him unfit to discharge the duties which he is called upon to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quires confirmation by the Government where the annual income of the math exceeds rupees one lakh. An additional power has been conferred on the Commissioner by Sub-section (3) to suspend the mathadhipathi pending the passing of an order under Sub-section (2). 6. The view which was taken in the above case was that Section 52(1) (f) of the repealed Act did not in effect seek to cut down title authority of the Mahant which was traditionally recognized and that the said provision which authorised the institution of a suit for removal of a Mahant where he was found to have wasted the property of the math or applied such funds or property for purposes wholly unconnected with the institution did not amount to an unreasonable restriction upon the exercise of the rights of the Mahant. On behalf of the petitioner a strenuous attempt has been made to show that Section 46 of the Act is quite different from its counterpart contained in the repealed Act, namely, Section 52 and that the powers which have been conferred are clearly violative of the fundamental right to hold the office of the Mahant as also the property of the math. In H.H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar's [1963] Supp.2 S.C.R.30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he preside over religious functions and other periodical festivities which are held in the seat of the math. Thus, it is urged, that there is a clear violation of Article 19(1)(f) which guarantees the petitioner's right to hold and enjoy the property, apart from the interference with his right to practice and propagate religion and manage the affairs of the math in matters of religion which rights are guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 7. As regards Article 19(1)(f) it has to be seen whether the restrictions which have been imposed by the impugned provisions of the Act are reasonable and are in the interest of the general public. There can be little or no doubt that if a mathadhipathi is of an unsound mind or suffers from any physical or mental defect or infirmity or has ceased to profess Hindu religion or the tenets of the math or if his case falls within Clauses (d) to (h) of Section 46(1) his removal would be in the interest of the general public. A mathadhipathi cannot possibly perform his duties either as a spiritual or a temporal head nor can be properly administer or manage the trust property if he Falls within the categories mentioned in Clauses (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 26. Now under Section 47 of the Act where a mathadhipathi is under suspension the Commissioner can make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the administration of the math until another mathadhipathi succeeds to the office and in making such arrangement he has to have due regard to the claims of the disciples of the math. It is maintained on behalf of the petitioner that the appointment of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tirupathi as the day to-day administrator of the math and its endowment as a two-fold effect. The first is that the complete autonomy which a religious denomination like the math in question enjoys in the matter of observance of rights and ceremonies essential to the tenets of the religion has been interfered with. The second is that the right of administration has been altogether taken away from the hands of the religious denomination by vesting it in the Assistant Commissioner. This clearly contravenes the provisions of Clauses (b) and (d) of Article 26 within the rule laid down in the first Shirur Math case. By doing so in exercise of the powers under Section 47 the Commissioner has also debarred the petitioner from practising and propa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Commissioner was at liberty, at any moment, to deprive the Mahant of his right to administer the trust property even if there was no negligence or maladministration on his part. Such a restriction was held to be opposed to the provisions of Article 26(d) of the Constitution. Section 47 of the Act is not in pari materia with Section 56 of the repealed Act. On the contrary Section 47 indicates quite clearly the conditions and situations in which the Commissioner can appoint someone to carry on the administration of the math and its endowments. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner has been appointed as a day to-day administrator because of the inquiry which is pending against the petitioner and in which serious charges of misappropriation and defalcation of trust funds and leading an immoral life are being investigated. It cannot be said that Section 47 would be hit by Article 26(d) of the Constitution as the powers under it will be exercised, inter alia, when mismanagement of property or maladministration of trust funds are involved. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has not made any serious attempt to argue that in the view that we are inclined to take there would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
