Important point
While considering challenge to appoint­­ment of an Executive Officer to a religious denominational institution, the Court must bear in mind the protection given under Article 26 of the Constitution.

Order

Civil Appeal No. 1340/86 :

Though elaborate arguments were addressed by counsel on both sides challenging and defending the appointment of an Executive Officer to the appellant-institution, we are of the view that it is not necessary at this stage to deal with the merits or demerits of the contentions in the view we propose to take in this appeal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:-

The appellant initially challenged the constitutionally of Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (herein­after referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.1. This Court in Kakinada Annadana Samajam, etc. v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad & Ors.1, while upholding the validity of Section 27 of the Act, directed that the issue whether the appellant-institution and similarly established institutions are religious denominations within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution should be agitated in a proper forum before challenging the vires of Section 27 of the Act. Thereafter, the appel­lant filed O.S. No. 466/72 before the Sub-Judge, Vijyawada, for a declaration that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the appellant-institution; that the respondents had not jurisdiction to appoint an Executive Officer to the appellant-institution and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the administration of the institution. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 27.11.76 held that the appellant-institution is a religious denomination. However, the challenge to the appointment of an Execu­tive Officer and the injunction prayed for were refused. Aggrieved by that refusal of injunction, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court in A.S. 64/77.

2.2. A learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by a Judgment dated 21.8.78 held that the power of the functionaries under the Act to suspend a Trustee and appoint a fit person under Section 26 or to appoint an Executive Officer under Section 27 should be read down to mean that the power so exercised should not amount to total extinction or destruction altogether of the right of the religious denomination to administer the property and vest in any other authori­ty. The learned Single Judge, however, held “by the appointment of the Executive Officer, there is no interference with the constitution of the Governing Body. But the Executive Officer is appointed for better management of the institution. Sub-section 4(a) of Section 27 of the Act clearly provides that the Executive Officer appointed shall be under the administrative control of the trustee of the Institution or endowment and shall be responsible for carrying out all lawful direc­tion issued by such trustee from time to time. Thus, the Executive Officer merely works under the direction of the Governing Body and is under the control of the Governing Body. I do not, therefore, think that the administration of the property of the religious denomination is entirely taken away and vested in another person by the appointment of the Executive Officer. Thus, the suspension of the trustees by the Endowment was set aside, the appointment of fit person to the appel­lant-institution was also set aside. The other claim in the suit, i.e., that the provisions of the Act are inapplicable to the institu­tion and the Endowment has no jurisdiction to appoint an Executive Officer was dismissed.”

2.3. Still aggrieved, the appellant preferred an LPA No. 16/79. Before the Division Bench, the appointment of Executive Officer was chal­lenged inter alia on the ground that Sections 26 and 27 of the Act are violative of the provisions of the Constitution and, therefore, the appointment of Executive Officer under Section 27 of the Act is liable to set aside. The High Court rejected such a contention in view of the decision of this Court in Kakinada Annadana Samajam (supra). The Division Bench, while agreeing with the learned Single