SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., V.R. KRISHNA IYER, N.L. UNTWALIA, P.N. SHINGHAL AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.**
Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt, etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1445-1448 and 1720A-1722 of 1968
Decided on 27-8-1979.
AND
Bhandarikeri Mutt and others etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Mysore and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. H. B. Datar, Sr. Advocate (M/s. R. B. Datar and A. K. Srivastava, Advocates with him) (in C. A. Nos. 1445 - 48 of 1968) and A. K. Srivastava, Advocate for Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocate (in C. A. Nos. 1720A - 1722 of 1968), for Appellants; Dr. V. A. Sayed Mohamad, Sr. Advocate (Mr. N. Nettar, Advocate with him) (for Nos.1-3) in C. A. Nos. 1445 - 1448 and 1720A-1722 of 1968 and Mr. R. P. Bhat, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Girish Chandra, Advocate with him) (for No. 4) in C. A. Nos. 1445-1448 of 1968, for Respondents.
* W.P. Nos. 1575, 1576, 1579 of 1965 and 1439 of 1966, D/-25-8-1967 reported in (1967) 12 Law Rep 195 and W. P. Nos. 1649 to 1651 of 1964, D/-25-8-1967 (My).
** The Judgments are printed in the order in which they are given in the certified copy.-Ed.
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14 and 226 - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of 1951 – Section 76(1),119 and 80 - Indian Arms Act – Section 29 - Charitable Institutions – Services - These seven appeals by certificate are directed against judgment - Writ Petitions were filed by appellants under Article 226 of Constitution praying that demand notices issued by Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments of Mysore be quashed and for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any action in pursuance thereof - Madras Legislature passed an Act called the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of 1951 to provide for better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State Section 76 (1) of Act, as it stood originally, provided that in respect of the services rendered by Government and their officers, every religious institution shall, from the income derived by it, pay to Government annually such contribution not exceeding 5 per centum of its income as may be prescribed - This provision and some other provisions of Act were challenged in Madras High Court on behalf of one and others - Whether there is a fair correspondence between fee charged and the cost of services rendered to fee payers as a class – Held, but quite part from the unsatisfactory nature of pleadings in these cases which, by itself, justified the dismissal of the writ petitions, and the fact that a Constitution Bench of this Court has taken the view in the case of Sugar Industries Ltd., that it cannot be said that because a certain number of years have elapsed, State has acted improperly in continuing an impost which operates upon a class of citizens more harshly than upon others, it has to be remembered that a mutt is a monastic institution for the use and benefit of ascetics belonging to a particular order presided over by a superior who is its religious teacher - Mutt property, though originally given by a donor, belongs to that spiritual family represented by the superior or mahant - It does not, however, vest in him, as he is some sort and vests in the mutt as a juristic person - This has been sufficiently borne out in definition of math in cl. (10) of S. 6 of the Madras Act of 1951 - Mutt has therefore a laudable object and it is in the interest of all concerned that such endowments should be properly administered - As there are mutts in the other areas of State it is necessary that State Government should examine whether contribution provided for by the Madras Act of 1951 is really necessary and advantageous for the proper administration of religious and charitable institutions and endowments in the State as a whole and, if not, whether it is an inequality, and its continued applicability to the South Kanara district can be justified with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:—These seven appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment dated August 25, 1967 given by the High Court of Mysore in Writ Petitions Nos. 1649, 1650 and 1651 of 1964, Writ Petitions Nos. 1575, 1576 and 1579 of 1965 and Writ Petition No. 1439 of 1966. These Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the demand notices issued by the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments of Mysore be quashed and for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any action in pursuance thereof.
2. Until November 1, 1956, when the States Reorganisation Act, 37 of 1956, came into force, the District of South Kanara was a part of the former State of Madras. As a result of the States Reorganisation Act that District became a part of the State of Mysore, now the State of Karnataka.
3. The Madras Legislature passed an Act called the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of 1951 ("the Madras Act of 1951"), to provide for the better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras. Section 76 (1) of the Act, as it stood originally, provided that in respect of the services rendered by the Government and their officers, every religious institution shall, from the income derived by it, pay to the Government annually such contribution not exceeding 5 per centum of its income as may be prescribed. This provision and some other provisions of the Act were challenged in the Madras High Court on behalf of the Shirur Mutt and others. The challenge was upheld by the High Court and the appeal filed therefrom by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, was dismissed by this Court in Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005. Section 76 (1) was held void by this Court on the ground that the provisions relating to the payment of annual contribution contained in it was in the nature of tax and not fee and therefore it was beyond the legislative competence of the Madras State Legislature to enact the provision. The Madras Legislature amended Sec. 76(1) of the Act so as to provide that in respect of the services rendered by the Government and their officers, "and for defraying the expenses incurred on account of such services", every religious institution shall, from the income derived by it, pay to the Commissioner annually such contribution not exceeding five per centum of its income as may be prescribed. The validity of the amended section was upheld by this Court in Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar v. Commr. for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore, 1963 Supp 2 SCR 802.
4. After the formation of the new State of Mysore under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, laws which were in force in the areas which were formerly comprised within the Madras State, continued to apply to those areas notwithstanding the fact that they became part of the new State of Mysore. Section 119 of the Act of 1956 provides that the provisions of Part II ("Territorial Changes and Formation of New States") shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to an existing State shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day. It is by reason of this section that the Madras Act of 1951 continued to apply to the South Kanara District which prior to November 1, 1956, was a part of the Madras State but which became after that date a part of the Mysore State.
5. We will refer to the facts of Civil Appeal 1445 of 1968 which arises out of Writ Petition 1575 of 1965. The facts of the other appeals are in material respect similar. The appel
Commissiener Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
State of Rajasthan v. Raa Manohar Singhji
referred to : Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. State of M. P.
State of M. P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.
relied on : Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissia
distinguished : Jia Lal v. Delhi administration
relied on : Bhaiyalal Shukla v. State of M. P.
Narottam Kishort Dev Varma v. Union of INDIA
Secretary, government of Mudras, Home Department v. Zenith Lamp and Electrical Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.