2005 Supreme(AP) 1154

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Ramanama Sankirthana Sangham, vijayawada - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-16-05

Headnote:A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 - Sections 8, 15, 29, 65, 69 - Appointment of Executive Officers - Appointment sale basis of G.O. Ms. 433 dt. 5-5-93 amount to non-application of mind - Commissioner required to exercise the discretion in appointment of E.Os. for just and Valid reasons.

       Held : Interest of the subject religious or charitable institution is paramount and the Commissioner/competent authority to appoint executive officers has necessarily to examine the requirements of each individual charitable or religious institution and decide as to whether an executive officer is required to be appointed thereto. Appointment of executive officers, mechanically, solely on the basis of G. O. Ms. No. 433 dated 5. 5. 1993, would undoubtedly amount to non-application of mind. Since, however, the impugned G. O. has merely prescribed the sanctioned strength of executive officers and has classified institutions for the purpose of appointment of executive officers and, in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, no executive officer has as yet been appointed to the petitioner - institutions, it would meet the ends of justice and satisfy the requirements of law, if the Commissioner, (2nd respondent herein), is directed to examine the need for appointment of an executive officer to each of the petitioner - institutions, consider all relevant factors and to record the reasons for his decision.

       The order holding that before an executive Officer is appointed, the commissioner is required to apply his mind, consider all relevant factors, examine the need for appointment of an Executive officer to each individual institution and to record reasons for his decision in this regard would also apply to appointment of a manager, since such an appointment, under section 29 (5) (d) of Act 30 of 1987, is only in cases where no Executive Officer has been appointed to such an institution. Needless to state that the discretion, in appointment of Executive Officers/managers for any religious or charitable institution, can be exercised only after application of mind.

       Wholly unnecessary for this court to examine the vires of Sections 15 and 29 of Act 30 of 1987, or to deal with the other contentions of Sri P. M. Gopal rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the writ petition is required to be disposed of on the short ground that the commissioner, is required to take into consideration the factual position relating to each individual charitable or religious institution and after proper application of mind exercise his discretion in deciding as to whether or not an executive officer is required to be appointed thereto.

       Principles of natural justice are to be read into the unoccupied interstices of a statute and would require compliance where it results in civil consequences, (Institute of Chartered Accountants of india v. L. K. Ratna, AIR 1987 SC 71, baldev Singh v. State of Himachal pradesh, (supra) ). It cannot however be stretched so far as to require the petitioners to be put on notice or to give them an opportunity of being heard before an executive officer is appointed to their institutions. The plea that appointment of an executive officer would cast an unnecessary financial burden on the petitioner - institutions resulting in civil consequences, may have been justified when the writ petitions were filed in the year 1993, since Section 29 (6) of Act 30 of 1987, (as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 34 of 1997 with effect from 1. 4. 1998), provided that the salary, allowances and other remunerations of an executive officer shall be paid in the first instance out of the consolidated fund of the State and later recovered from the institution of the endowment. After its amendment, (by Act 34 of 1997 with effect from 1. 4. 1998), Section 29 (6) provides that while the salary, allowances and other remunerations of an executive officer shall be paid in the first instance out of the consolidated fund of the State, it shall later be recovered from Endowments administration Fund established under section 69 of the Act. Under Section 69 (2) (a) (iii), the Endowment Administration fund is to include contribution and audit fee payable under Section 65 (1) of the Act. Under Section 65 (1), every charitable or religious institution, whose annual income is not less than Rs. 5,000/- is liable to pay to the Government, annually from its income, such contribution of the actual expenditure incurred towards such services, subject to a maximum of 15% of the annual income, as may be prescribed. This liability to pay annual contribution under Section 65 (1) is irrespective of whether an executive officer is appointed or not and since the liability under Section 65 (1) would not significantly change if an executive officer is appointed, the petitioner-institutions cannot be said to suffer civil consequences on the appointment of an executive officer to their institutions. Further, under Section 29 (5) (a), an executive officer, appointed under the section, shall be under the administrative control of the trustee of the institution or endowment and shall be responsible for carrying out all lawful directions issued by such trustee from time to time. Appointment of an executive officer would not therefore affect any of the vested rights of the petitioners nor can civil consequences be said to have resulted on such appointment, necessitating their being put on notice or being given an opportunity of being heard prior to such appointment.