IMPORTANT POINT
An Act relating to religious and charitable institutions would be presumed to be applicable only in respect of the properties or any part thereof situate in the State. A statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute.

Headnote:Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950—Sections 41A, 41B—Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional Reorganisation) Order, 1960—Jurisdiction of Assistant Charity Commissioner of Bombay—Administration of a religious trust—Reorganization of State of Bombay—State of Gujarat was formed w.e.f. 1-5-1960—Jurisdiction of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bombay was confined only to properties situate within the State of Maharashtra—Only some properties of the trust are situate in the Maharashtra region—Trust has properties both in Maharashtra and Gujarat regions—Charity Commissioner, Bombay had no jurisdiction in relation to the administration of the entire trust as office of the trust is situate within the State of Gujarat—Bombay Statutory Corporations (Regional Act XXI of 1960)
Held : The Legislature of a State while enacting a law is required to maintain the territorial nexus. Only in certain cases, extra-territoriality provided for in the Act is accepted. The field of legislation in respect of religious endowments and religious institutions is referable to Item 28 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Ordinarily, therefore, the Legislation enacted by a State will be applicable only within the territorial limits thereof. There is a general presumption that the Legislature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction. An Act relating to religious and charitable institutions would be presumed to be applicable only in respect of the properties or any part thereof situate in the State. The 1960 Act, however, makes the provisions explicit, clear and unambiguous. The property of the Trust situate within the Maharashtra region in terms of Clause 4(b) of the 1960 Order is to be deemed to be registered with the Charity Commissioner, Bombay. The said authority could thus have exercised its jurisdiction only in respect of that property. It had no jurisdiction in relation to the administration of the entire trust as the office of the trust is situate within the State of Gujarat. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, therefore, could not have issued any direction as prayed for in the application filed before it by the first respondent herein. A statutory authority, as is well known, must exercise its jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute. It cannot act beyond the same. Any order which is passed by an authority which lacked inherent jurisdiction would be ultra vires.(Para 22)
The Charity Commissioner did not find that the allegations relating to mismanagement had any foundation. It has been clearly held that the said allegations are not proved. The Charity Commissioner also declined to pass an order in terms of Section 41A as regards the prayer for appointment of an administrator. The first respondent was only given liberty to file an appropriate application under the Act. In the event, such an application is filed, indisputably the same has to be determined on its own merit. We would, however, observe that any such application alleging to mismanagement of the trust, if filed, may be forwarded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Gujarat who shall deal with it. It is further made clear that the respondent would be at liberty to inspect the audited accounts in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in terms of the scheme framed by the Gujarat High Court.(Para 27)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Charity Commissioner of Bombay in relation to the administration of the Appellant-Trust is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 25th September, 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1519 of 2002.

3. The appellant herein is a religious trust. A scheme for management of the temple of Swami Narain Vadtal and other temples subordinate to it, was framed by the High Court of Bombay in the year 1922. The said scheme contained provisions as to how accounts should be maintained. Clauses 26 to 29 thereof, which are relevant as under :

“26. At each temple proper accounts of all receipts and expenditure shall be kept and for such purposes the following books of account shall be kept:-

i)Cash Book (Rukad)

ii)Auro (Monthly Rozmel)

iii)Nondh (Daily Journal)

iv)Ledger containing separate Khatas for each head of income and expenditure including all expenditure on account of Tyagis.

The ledger kept at the Vadtal Temple shall also contain separate khatas of–

(a)Name Vero and Bhets;

(b)The household expenditure on account of the Acharya;

(c)Any expenditure incurred on account of the Acharya on official tours and other official occasions; and

(d)What may be paid to the Acharya on account of the personal expenditure but not of such personal expenditure

27. ..............

28. At the close of each Samvat year a separate Financial Statement and Balance Sheet shall be drawn up in regard to each temple and in regard to the whole Institution. Copies of such Statements and Balance Sheets shall be furnished to each member of the Committee by the Kothari (Manager) before the first quarterly meeting of the following year and such Balance Sheets and Statements shall be checked and passed by the Committee at such Meeting.

29. In terms of Clause 29, all books of accounts and vouchers were to be opened to for inspection of each member of the Committee or all Satsangies appointed by the Committee.”

4. Upon coming into force of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (‘the Act’), the Trust was to be governed thereunder.

5. An application for registration of the Trust was filed, pursuant whereto a certificate of registration in respect of the temple of Lakshmi Narayan Devasan and properties of the temples subordinate thereto was issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay.

6. The Parliament enacted The Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 in terms whereof the State of Gujarat was carved out of the State of Bombay. In anticipation of such reorganization, the Legislature of the State of Bombay enacted the Bombay Statutory Corporations (Regional Act XXI of 1960), Section 3(1) hereof read as under :-

“3(1) If it appears to the State Government expedient that any existing corporation which is operating and functioning immediately before the commencement of this Act, should be dissolved or that it should be reconstituted and reorganized so that there are established or functioning separate corporations for the Maharashtra and Gujarat regions, that Government may by order make provision for such dissolution or reconstitution and reorganization of such existing corporation.”

7. The said provision was intended to apply to the institution of Charity Commissioner.

8. The State of Gujarat was formed with effect from 1st May, 1960. However, immediately prior thereto, an Order known as the Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional Reorganisation) Order, 1960 was issued which came into force with effect from 28th April, 1960, the relevant provisions whereof are as under:-

“The Bombay Charity Commissioner (Regional Reorganisation) Order, 1960. On the bifurcation of the former State of Bombay with effect from 1st May, 1960, the State of Gujarat and the State of Maharashtra, have their own Charity Organisations for public trusts within their respective States. In view of the bifurcation of the Bombay State, it was proposed to provide for the reorganization of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 430

IMPORTANT POINTAn Act relating to religious and charitable institutions would be presumed to be applicable only in respect of the properties or any part thereof situate in the State. A statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
An Act relating to religious and charitable institutions would be presumed to be applicable only in respect of the properties or any part thereof situate in the State. A statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute.