2006 Supreme(AP) 13

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
G.RAJENDRANATH GOUD - Appellant
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-03-06

Headnote:A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 87(1)(h), 17(1), 20 - Enquiry for determining whether a person is a founder or family member of founder - Commissioner of endowments incompetent to conduct any enquiry under Section 87(1)(h).

       Held : the founder or members of the founder s family may be nominated as trustees and made chairpersons of the board of trustees to ensure proper maintenance of the temple/charitable institution.

       Reading Section 17 with appointment Rules, it becomes clear the nature of enquiry by the competent authority is only to see whether any aspirant incurs any disqualification and whether such a person is suitable and eligible for being appointed as trustee. The very nature of power exercised under Sections 15, 17 and 20 read with the relevant Rules would leave no doubt that the functions are purely of administrative in nature, no quasi judicial functions are involved. Indeed the Rules do not even contemplate issue of a notice before an application is rejected and the statute does not confer any right on any person for being appointed as a matter of right as trustee of a temple or institution. That is the reason why Explanation I under Section 17 (1) employs the term "recognised" while dealing with preferential right of a person or a member of the founder s family. Explanation II employs terms "declared or recognized".

       Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act uses the phrase "to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an institution or endowment". Therefore, the provision dealing with enquiries contemplates enquiry to decide the question as to whether a person is a founder of the institution or not, whereas the explanation I to Section 17 (1) of the Act employs the phrase "a person who has founded the institution and recognized as such by the competent authority" to be given preference in the appointment as a member of Board of Trustees. The distinction in the language employed is a clear indication that if the dispute arises as to who is the person or persons who are members of the family of the founder or a founder, the enquiry has to be necessarily conducted by the Deputy commissioner of Endowments. At the time of appointment, unless and until such person who is determined and declared to be a founder or a member of the family of the founder, is declared or recognized as such founder or member of the founder s family, no purpose would be served.

       The word "recognition" is not defined in the Act. In such case, it is always permissible for the Court to interpret the undefined term or phrase, having regard to the interpretation of such word or phrase by judicial decisions and in the absence of such judicial interpretation, rely on the dictionary for arriving true meaning of the word, which is not defined in the Statute.

       the Explanation II to Section 17 (1) of the Act describes children, grand children in agnatic line of succession as members of the family of the founder. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 casts an obligation on the appointing authority to appoint either the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder to be trustees in the Board. Whereas Explanation I requires a founder or a member of the family of a founder to be recognised by the appointing authority. To reconcile Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act, which confers power on Deputy Commissioner to decide question as to who is member of the founder s family and Section 17 (1) which empowers the appointing authority to recognise , one should adopt the contextual interpretation while interpreting both the provisions separately and should adopt harmonious construction of both the provisions to avoid any conflict. Doing so, this Court is of considered opinion that when there is a dispute among the members of the founder, as to who is or who are members of the founder s family, an enquiry has to be necessarily conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of endowments under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act. In a situation where this exercise has already been completed either before the Judgment of the Supreme court in Pannalal Bansilal v State of A. P. , (supra) or while the circular issued by the Commissioner of Endowments was in operation or before coming into force of the amended Section 87 (1) (h), unless and until such person or persons are recognized by the appointing authority under Section 17 (1) (under both the explanations), no such person can be appointed as a member of the Board of trustees. In the event of recognition of all successors of the founder as members of the founder s family, it is for the appointing authority to recognize one of them subject to fulfilling the qualifications as one of the members of the family of the founder for being appointed as a trustee. Therefore, the conclusion is that when a member or members of the founder s family are not determined or declared, it is only the Deputy Commissioner who has to conduct enquiry and any competent authority - be it Government; Commissioner of endowments or Deputy commissioner or Assistant Commissioner - cannot have any jurisdiction to conduct such enquiry contemplated under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act. Before coming into force of 1987 Act, and after coming into force of 1987 act, the petitioner herein filed applications being O. A. No. 1 of 1997 (under section 77 (c) (c) of 1966 Act) and O. A. No. 40 of 1997 (under Section 87 (1) (e) of 1987 Act ). No doubt, in the orders passed in these two original applications, there are certain observations made which might be construed as conferring some benefit on the petitioner. The fact is that so far no enquiry has been conducted by the competent authority i. e. , Deputy Commissioner of Endowments or the Government before coming into force of the amendment to Section 87 (1) or after coming into force of that provision. Therefore, in the background facts of this case, the notice of enquiry issued by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction and to that extent the submission of the petitioner s counsel commends itself to this Court. But the other submission that the Government alone should conduct enquiry to decide the question as to who among the four sons of Jagannath Goud is a question which squarely falls within the ambit of section 87 (1) (h) of the Act and therefore necessarily the jurisdictional Deputy commissioner of Endowments alone has competence to decide the question. The order of this Court dated 03. 08. 2005 cannot be understood as directing an incompetent authority to conduct enquiry under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act.

       This Court declares that the commissioner of Endowments is incompetent to conduct any enquiry under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Act. He is therefore directed to send back the entire material including the applications made by the third respondent herein seeking recognition as a member of the founder s family, to the Deputy Commissioner of endowments concerned immediately so as to enable the latter to complete the enquiry after giving notice to the rival claimants.