SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 157

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassji Varu, Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. and another, Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 347 of 1968, D/- 26-3-1969.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Kanak Ghosh and B. Datta, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. P.Ram Reddy, Senior Advocate, (M/s. A. V. V. Nair and P. Parameshwar Rao, Advocates with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. G. M. Reshi, Dy. AG.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 - Sections 46 and 47 - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments - Religious duties - Petitioner claims to be Mathadhipathi of Shri Swami Hathiramji Math Tripathi-Thirumalla in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that this institution was founded several centuries ago and is one of the renowned Maths in India. Hundreds of Sadhus visit the Math throughout year and it is duty of Mahant as its religious head to provide visiting Sadhus with food and shelter and to perform all religious duties with regard to celebration of Hindu festivals, propagation of cult of Shri Swami Hathiramji and performance of other religious functions - Held, Assistant Commissioner has been appointed as a day-to-day administrator because of the inquiry which is pending against 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 Constitution as the powers under it will be exercised, inter alia, when mismanagement of property or maladministration of trust funds are involved - Counsel for petitioner has not made any serious attempt to argue that in the view that court inclined to take there would be any contravention of Article 31 (1) of Constitution - Petition dismissed.

Judgment

GROVER, J.:- This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging inter alia, the constitutionality of Ss. 46 and 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act No. 17 of 1966), hereinafter called the "Act" and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writs and directions to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, hereinafter called the "Commissioner", prohibiting him from exercising his powers or taking action under the aforesaid sections.

2. The petitioner claims to be the Mathadhipathi of Shri Swami Hathiramji Math Tripathi-Thirumalla in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that this institution was founded several centuries 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 religious 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 and 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 be mentioned. Before this order was made the petitioner withdrew the suit filed by him in April 1962. Devendradoss, who was another claimant but who was a minor, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the above order of the Government but the same was rejected by the Division Bench. Devendradoss then filed certain suits for a declaration of his title. On August 22, 1964, the Commissioner made an order directing the petitioner to show cause why the previous order appointing him as an interim Mahant be not recalled. According to the petitioner this was done because the State Government started claiming, contrary to the rule and custom which prevailed in the Math, that the amounts received on account of Padakanukas (personal offerings) should be paid to the Government and not taken by the Mahant. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court issued a stay order which was later on clarified to mean that the State Government was free to take such further action under the Act as it considered necessary. On September 9, 1965 the State Government framed charges against the petitioner and directed him to furnish his explanation. The petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. It was further directed that the Assistant Commissioner, Tirupathi should take charge of the Math and its affairs. Meanwhile another claimant Bhagwantdoss filed a suit on September 29, 1965, claiming title to the gaddi in his own right. The writ petition which had been filed by the petitioner was allowed by the High Court on November 8, 1966. The matter ultimately came up in appeal to this Court, the judgment being reported in Secretary, Home (Endowments), Andhra Pradesh v. Digyadarsam Rajindra Ram Dasjee, 1967-3 SCR 891 The judgment of the High Court was affirmed. The High Court had held that the petitioner had succeeded to the office of the Mahant on the death of Chetandoss on March 18, 1962 in his own right. This Court concurred in that view
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top