1998 Supreme(SC) 930

1998(7) Supreme 135
Supreme Court of India
(From Madras High Court)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar -Appellant
versus
The Commissioner, H.R.C.E. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4570-4571 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2982-2983 of 1998)
Decided on 2-9-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K. Parasaran, M. Chandrashekharan, Sr. Advocates, V. Lakshmikumaran, V. Balachandran, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate (Gopal Subramaniam) Sr. Advocate (N.P.), V. Krishnamurthy, V. Ramasubramanian, K.B.S. Rajan, Ms. Pushpa Rajan, S.R. Hegde, Advocates.

Important Point
Deputy Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment has jurisdiction under Section 64(5) of Tamil Nadu H.R.E.C. Act, 1959 to cancel or modify a scheme which was originally settled by the High Court under the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959-Sec­tion 64(5)(a) read with Section 118(2)(a)-Modification or cancella­tion of scheme-Powers of Deputy Commissioner-Scheme in question originally settled by High Court under Code of Civil Procedure-Then deemed to have been settled under 1927 H.R.C.E. Act-Then deemed to have been settled under 1951 H.R.C.E. Act-Ulti­mately same deemed to have been settled under present Act by virtue of Section 118(2)(a) - Whether scheme in question could be modified or cancelled by Deputy Commis­sioner-Held, yes.

       Held : Section 64(5)(a) expressly confers power on the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to modify or cancel a scheme in force which is deemed too have been settled or modified by the Court under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 118. The pre­sent scheme framed by the Court, becomes under Section 118(2)(a), a scheme deemed to have been settled by the appropriate authority under the said Act of 1959. It was also a scheme which was earlier, during the subsistence of Act 2 of 1927, deemed to have been settled under that Act. Therefore, Section 64(5)(a) expressly confers a power on the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to modify or cancel scheme framed earlier under previous legislation including a scheme which is deemed to have been settled under a corresponding provision of Act XIX of 1951. The High Court has, therefore, rightly held that the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to modify the scheme in the present case. (Para 11)

       Under Section 64(5) apart from the schemes framed under the current Act of 1959, the scheme settled by the Board as well as by the Court under the Act of 1927 or deemed to be so settled are covered by Section 64(5)(a). Similarly, schemes which are settled or deemed to be settled under the Act of 1951 are covered by the last part of Section 64(5). The reference in the last part of Section 64(5)(a) to Section 118(2)(a) is for the purpose of including in Section 64(5)(a) all those schemes settled or deemed to be settled under the Act of 1951 and saved by Section 118(2)(a). In Section 64(5)(a) the words ‘by the Court’ have a reference to schemes which were settled or deemed to be settled or modified by the Court under the Act of 1951. In respect of schemes deemed to be settled by the Court under the Act of 1951, the reference is clearly to the schemes covered by Section 103(d) of the Act of 1951. All those schemes which were so settled or modified or deemed to be so settled or modified by the Court under Section 103(d) of the Act of 1951, are now covered and validated under Section 118(2)(a). These schemes so validated and continued under the Act of 1959 can also be modified under Section 64(5)(a) of the Act of 1959. Therefore, under Section 64(5)(a), all schemes in force deemed to have been settled or modified by the Court under the Act of 1951 and covered by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 118, are subject to modification or cancellation under the provisions of Section 64(5)(a). The scheme in the present case can be modified under Section 64(5) of the 1959 Act. (Paras 14 & 15)

       Further held : It is next contended that provisions of Section 64(5) are an attempt by the Legislature to nullify orders of the Court in the form of schemes framed by the Court under earlier legislations and, there­fore, Section 64(5) must be considered as unconstitutional being an attempt to set aside or modify a decree of the Court. The High Court has rightly held that this is not a case of passing a legislation in order to nullify the interpretation of law given in the judgment of a Court of law. The schemes which were framed by the Courts under earli­er legislation were schemes which were capable of modification or cancellation in accordance with law even under the legislation under which such schemes were framed. While repealing the earlier legisla­tion when new legislation came into force, the power to modify and cancel such schemes was expressly transferred under the new legisla­tion to the authorities specified therein. Under the present legisla­tion of 1959 the authority which has the power so to modify the scheme is the Deputy Commissioner or Joint Commissioner. We do not see any attempt to set aside any decree of the Court by legislation in the present case. (Para 16)