Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 436
2006(4) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
Swamy Prakasananda and Anr.—Appellants
versus
State of Kerala and Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 486 of 2003
Decided on 2-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, Pritish Kapur, K.V. Mohan, Upamanya Hazarika, Ms. Niharika Bahl, Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Ms. Simran Brar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Rakesh Dwivedi, U.U. Lalit, Sr. Advocates, Roy Abraham, Ms. Seema Jain, Himinder Lal, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Subramonium Prasad, C.K. Sasi, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Abhishek Choudhry, Piyush Vats, Gaurav Bhatia, Gaurav Liberahan, Adarsh Upadhaya, Ajit Singh, Saed Sharvani, Advocates.
Headnote:Sivagiri Mutt (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1997—Writ challenging constitutional validity of Act—Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom at Sivagiri Mutt—Certain disputes arose in respect of affairs of Sanghom—Kerala High Court formed a scheme for said Sanghom as per its judgment dt. 26-3-1959—Scheme required constitution of Board from among members/trustees for management and administration of trust—Board was to hold office for 5 years—Members of Board were to be elected at special meeting of the General Body—Injunction suit in 1994 to restrain Board members from conducting elections—On a complaint dt. 24-6-1997 by one of the factors proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated and Dist. Magistrate passed order placing properties of Trust under receivership—State Govt. passed the Act vesting of management of Trust in Govt. for two years w.e.f. 9-10-1997 and to continue to vest for further period but not to exceed 5 years—High Court upheld the validity of Act—Appeal—Elections to Trust Board was conducted by State Govt. on 11-10-2001 as per directions of High Court—Period of vesting of management in Govt. had expired and Act had exhausted—Challenge to certain acts done in pursuance of provisions of the Act—Challenge to validity of the Act given up and certain remedial/corrective measures suggested—Request for appointment of an independent authority for finalizing voters’ list, to supervise elections allowed and directions issued.
Held : In view of the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the parties, we find it unnecessary to examine the constitutional validity of the Act. On the facts and circumstances, we find the request by appellants for appointment of an independent authority for finalizing the voters list by examining the correctness of exclusion/removal of 24 members, and to supervise the elections, is just and proper. This appeal can, therefore, be disposed of by appointing a retired Judge of this Court, as the Authority to perform the following functions : (i) to scrutinize and decide the validity of the admission of 18 members to the Trust; (ii) to examine and decide whether the removal/exclusion of the said 18 members as also six of the original members from the Trust is valid; (iii) to finalize the list of voters for holding elections to elect the Trust Board; and (iv) to draw up the calendar, and supervise the conduct of the elections for the Board, the declaration of the result, and the handing over of the charge from the existing Board to the newly elected Trust Board. Both sides consented to Shri Justice K.S. Paripoornan, a retired Judge of this Court being appointed as such Authority.(Para 14)
Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with the following directions :
(i)Mr. Justice K.S. Paripoornan, a retired Judge of this Court, is appointed as the appropriate Authority to perform the functions mentioned in para (14) above.
(ii)The said Authority may grant an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties and may call for the relevant records, take affidavits and adopt suitable/appropriate procedure for deciding upon the validity of admission/exclusion of members and finalizing the list of voters for this purpose. His decision thereon shall be final and binding on the parties.
(iii)The said Authority shall finalize the list of voters within four months and conduct the Elections under his supervision within six months. The Trust Board and parties shall extend their fullest cooperation to enable the said Authority to discharge his functions.
(iv)The parties and/or their counsel shall appear before the Authority on 15.5.2006 at 11.00 AM, produce the relevant material and take further orders from him.
(v)The remuneration of the said Authority and expenses relating to all secretarial assistance, travel and other incidentals as indicated by the Independent Authority shall be borne and paid by the Trust to the said Authority. The expenses part shall be paid in advance, as indented.
(vi)Sri Swami Sugananda, one of the members of the Trust, is appointed to render such assistance as may be required by the said Authority. He shall, however, have no say in the decision making, which shall be exclusively within the domain of the said Authority.
(vii)Parties to bear their respective costs.
Registry to communicate this decision to Shri Justice K.S. Paripoornan. Liberty is reserved to the parties and the Authority to seek clarification from this Court, if necessary, in regard to any matter connected with or arising from the above directions.(Para 16)
JUDGMENT
Raveendran, J.—This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated 10.8.2001 passed by the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 19079/1997, wherein the appellants had challenged the constitutional validity of the Sivagiri Mutt Emergency Provisions (Ordinance), 1997 and the Sivagiri Mutt (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1997, (Kerala Act No. 17 of 1997) replacing the said Ordinance.
2. Sree Narayana Guru, a great social reformer and saint, founded Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom at Sivagiri Mutt, Varkala. The said Sanghom consisted of members who followed and believed in the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru. The members of the Sanghom were the monastic order of Sanyasi disciples nominated under the Will executed by Sree Narayana Guru. Certain disputes having arisen in respect of the affairs of the Sanghom, the Kerala High Court formed a scheme for the said Sanghom as per its judgment dated 26.3.1959 in Appeal Suit No. 14 of 1956, arising from O.S. No. 127 of 1954 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Attingal.
3. As per the scheme, all Sanyasins, who were the members of Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom on the date of coming into force of the scheme, became the members of the Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust (‘Trust’ or ‘Sanghom’ for short). The scheme requires constitution of a Board from among the members/trustees for the management and administration of the Trust, such Board consisting of not less than 7 and not more than 11 members, all to be elected by and at a special meeting of the General Body. The Board is to hold office for a term of five years. Provision is made for the Board to fill up any vacancies arising in it. The scheme contemplated selection of future members of the Trust from persons having the following qualifications (clause 7) :
(a)who have undergone a course of training in the Matha-mahapadhasala under this Sanghom;
(b)who are free, in thought, word and deed from casteism and religious fanaticism;
(c)who dedicate themselves to the service of the Sanghom for life;
(d)who are Thyagis free from marital and family attachments;
(e)who are not below the age of 25;
(f)who follow and observe the principles and code of conduct laid down by the Guru for Sanyasins; and
(g)who are prepared to abide by the rules and regulations of the Sanghom as also the decisions of the Board that may be taken from time to time.
Clause 7 of the Scheme further provides that it shall be competent for the Board to accept the service of any Sanyasins having qualifications sufficient in the opinion of the Board and enrol such Sanyasins as members of the Sanghom at a special meeting of the Board if they apply for membership, the subjective opinion of the Special Board in matters relating to such qualifications and fitness being final and binding. Clause 15 of the Scheme provides for suspension or removal of a member from the Sanghom.
4. It is stated that elections to the Board of the Trust were held on 26.7.1994 and 11 members were elected to the Board. But six of them resigned. There is a controversy as to whether two out of those six who resigned, withdrew their resignations. On the ground that the resignations of members reduced the number below the quorum, on 14.10.1994, the outgoing Trust Board convened a meeting of the general body and fixed the date for fresh elections as 22.11.1994. The first appellant herein filed O.S. No. 247/1994 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Attingal, for a declaration that the decision taken in the general body meeting on 14.10.1994 to convene a special meeting of the Sanghom on 22.11.1994 to conduct an election for the Trust Board was illegal, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants (outgoing Board members) from conducting such elections. A temporary injunction was granted on 21.11.1994. An appeal filed on 23.11.1994 by the defendants in that suit, against the said temporary injunction was allowed and the order of temporary injunction granted by the Sub-Judge was set aside by the appel
