Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.
State of A.P., Appellant
Versus
S. M. K. Parasurama Gurukul, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 796 of 1971, D/- 3-5-1973.
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1966 - Section 15 (1) (a), 15 (4), 6, 27, 15, 82 and 16 - Madras Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 47 - Temple - Trustee - Respondent has filed a suite claiming that temple in question is either a private family temple not falling within definition of term temple in Act or at least that he is a hereditary trustee- Whether in appointing trustees under Section 15 (1) (a) of Act Government acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal - Whether a decision is an administrative one or quasi-judicial has been clearly specified in a number of decisions of this Court - Whether there is a lis inter partes - Whether there is a claim and an opposition - Whether decision is to be founded on taking of evidence or on affidavits - Whether decision is actuated in whole or in part by questions of policy or expediency and if so whether in arriving at decision, statutory body has to consider proposals and objections and evidence - Whether in arriving at its decision, statutory body has only to consider policy and expediency and at no stage has before it any form of list – Held, respondent has also filed a suite claiming that the temple in question is either a private family temple not falling within the definition of the term temple in the Act or at least that he is a hereditary trustee - It is hardly necessary to say that in this case the respondent had no right to be appointed a trustee; nor had any of the other persons who were appointed trustees. There was no question of a proposition and an opposition. There is, therefore, no question of any list. Nor is here any question of contest between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it. Such a question will arise only if any right of the subject is affected. None of the other tests laid down above are satisfied in this case - administrative authority concerned does not have to weigh the relative merits of various candidates in making the appointment of trustees. Normally it would exercise its own discretion as to who is best fitted to discharge the duties and functions of a trustee. But that is not to say that it must set out the reasons as to why it has appointed somebody as trustee and not appointed somebody else as a trustee - We are of opinion that the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in so far as the implication of their observation is that in exercising their powers under Section 15 the administrative authorities concerned are exercising quasi-judicial functions and that it was necessary to have a speaking order - Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves an appeal concerning the appointment of trustees to a religious temple under the relevant statutory provisions (!) (!) .
The core issue is whether the authority responsible for appointing trustees acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal when exercising powers under the relevant section of the law (!) .
The decision-making process in appointing trustees does not require a formal list or contest between parties, as there is no dispute or opposition affecting the appointment (!) (!) (!) .
The authority's discretion in selecting trustees is generally broad, and it is not mandated to provide a speaking or reasoned order unless explicitly required by law (!) .
The determination of whether the authority acts judicially hinges on whether it is required to decide disputes, weigh evidence, or act based on policy and expediency. In this case, the authority's role is primarily administrative, exercising discretion without a duty to decide judicially (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Several criteria help distinguish a quasi-judicial act from an administrative one, including the existence of a lis (dispute), the need to consider evidence or affidavits, and whether the decision involves questions of policy or expediency (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
When an authority is empowered to decide rights or disputes between parties, it generally has a duty to act judicially, making its decision quasi-judicial (!) (!) .
In the absence of a dispute or contest, the appointment process under the relevant statute is considered administrative, with the authority exercising discretion without a duty to act judicially or provide a speaking order (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that the mere determination of facts by an executive or administrative authority does not automatically render its acts quasi-judicial; the manner and statutory requirements of decision-making are decisive (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The statutory provisions governing the appointment of trustees specify guidelines and criteria but do not impose a judicial or quasi-judicial process. Discretion is exercised within these statutory limits (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate decision concludes that the authority's appointment process in this case was administrative, and therefore, it was not necessary for the authority to issue a speaking or reasoned order (!) (!) (!) .
The appeal is allowed, and the earlier judgment requiring a speaking order is set aside. The costs are awarded to the appellant (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.
Judgment
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. :- This is an appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh holding that the appointment of nine trustees to the Kalahastiswara Swami Temple in the town of Kalahasti in the Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh was liable to be quashed on the short ground that the impugned order was not a speaking order. For this purpose the Bench relied upon its own judgment in Writ Petition No. 2536 of 1967 that the functionaries under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1966, though administrative tribunals, are exercising quasi-judicial functions in appointing non-hereditary trustees. By the time this appeal came up for hearing the period of office of the trustees, whose appointment was challenged by the respondent, was over and the respondents, therefore, contended that the appeal should be dismissed as having become infructuous. On behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh it was urged that the question is one of considerable importance to it and that appointment of trustees to a number of institutions is being held up because of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We, therefore, indicated that we would be prepared to hear the appeal but would make it conditional on the respondent getting his costs from the appellant irrespective of the result. The State of Andhra Pradesh has no objection.
2. It appears that the respondent has also filed a suite claiming that the temple in question is either a private family temple not falling within the definition of the term temple in the Act or at least that he is a hereditary trustee thereof. That suit is still pending. The decision in this appeal, therefore, simply proceeds on the basis that the respondent was one of the persons who had applied to be appointed as a trustee of the temple in question. We are, therefore, concerned only with the question whether in appointing trustees under Section 15 (1) (a) of the Act the Government acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal. That section provides that in respect of a charitable or religious institution or endowment included in the list published under clause (a) of Section 6 (there is no dispute that the temple in question falls under it) whose annual income exceeds rupees two 1akhs, the Government may, in the case where there is a hereditary trustee, and shall in any other case, constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of not less than seven and not more than eleven persons appointed by them his Court has held in E A. Samajam, v. Commr. H. R. & C. E., (1971) 2 SCR 878 dealing with this very Section 15, that the power to appoint non-hereditary trustees or executive officers under Sections 15 and 27, even where there is already a hereditary trustee or trustees, notwithstanding that there is no mismanagement, is only for the purpose of ensuring better and efficient administration and management of the institution or endowment. It also pointed out that in making the appointment of trustees it has been enjoined that due regard should be given to the religious denomination or any section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder and held this section valid. While Mr. Subba Rao appearing for the respondent wanted to contest the correctness of this decision and argued that it should be re-considered, we indicated that we do not propose to do so and that if and when he succeeds in the suit he is said to have filed in establishing that he is an hereditary trustee it may be open to him to urge this point at the appropriate time. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that Section 15 is valid.
3. The test for determining whether a decision is an administrative one or quasi-judicial has been clearly specified in a number of decisions of this Court. Essentially, they are three in number:
1. There must be a lis between the two parties;
2. the opinion should be formed on the objecti
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
