Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GODA RAGHURAM, S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO
Commissioner of Endowments, A.P. - Appellant
Versus
All India Sai Seva Samaj - Respondent
Decided On : 10-19-01
Held : Only because a society adopts the name of Sai Seva Sadan or professes to follow the preachings of Sai as one of its objects, the same by itself would not take the society out of the purview of the said Act as such societies may be formed by way of cloak or smoke and screen so as to enable it to come out of the rigours of the said Act. Each case has to be considered having regard to the purport and object of the said Act on its own merit particularly as regards the question as to whether it is a Charitable Institution and endowment or Hindu Religious Institution and Endowment. The exclusionary clause is a pointer to the fact that even if a society is out of the fold of public charitable institution and endowment although the same may not be so, so far as all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments are concerned. Charitable purpose as defined in Sec. 2 (5) must be read in the definition of charitable endowment as contained in Section 2 (3) thereof.
Having regard to the scope and purport of the provisions of the said Act, it cannot be said that the same applies to Hindi Religious institutions and Endowments only. If that restricted meaning is given, its applicability to all public charitable institutions and endowments would become otiose. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the same must be construed having regard to the purport and object thereof and each provision thereof must be given effect to.
Section 87 of the said Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to decide a question as to whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment or not as also whether the same is a religious institution or endowment or not. Keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, it is no gainsaying that as each case has to be considered on its own merits wherefor it may be necessary to hold a detailed enquiry, examine evidences and other materials which may be brought on records and, thus, we are of the opinion that when a jurisdictional fact is raised as regards the applicability of the Act, the same may be considered as a preliminary issue by the statutory Tribunal itself, although in a given case this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india may also take recourse thereof.
The submission to the effect that the institution does not come within the purview of temple as contained in Section 2 (27) of 1987 Act is not apposite having regard to the definition of charitable endowment and charitable purpose as referred to hereinbefore. But it will be a repetition to state what stands excluded from the purview of the Act would be Hindu religious institutions and endowment and not charitable institutions and endowments.
( 1 ) THE order of reference made by a division Bench of this Court dated 4-8-1995 reads:since this appeal has raised the question whether a Bench decision of this Court in Dy. Commissioner of endowments v. Saibaba Samsthanam (1991 (1) ALT 164) has correctly decided that a temple or mandir dedicated to Shirdi Saibaba is not an exclusively Hindu temple and it seems discussion as to the religion which saibaba propagated in the above judgment is taken as one parallel to the faith Kabirdas propagated, can it be said that endowments of Kabir Panth are not Hindu endowments and if the endowments to Kabir Panth are Hindu endowments and thus Hindu religious institutions, Sai temples are also Hindu temples, we are inclined to order for the hearing of the matter by a Special bench of three Judges of the Court.
( 2 ) THE writ petitioner-respondent is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies registration Act, 1350 F. It is not in dispute that it was also registered under the Andhra pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966) which Act stood repealed and replaced by reason of Section 155 of the a. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 1987 Act ). A notice dated 24-10-1987 issued by the Joint commissioner intending to appoint Board of trustees was the subject matter of the writ petition.
( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the point involved therein was covered by a decision of this Court in Dy. Commissioner of endowments v. Saibaba Samsthanam1.
( 4 ) IN the said decision, relying on or on the basis of the decisions of the Madras High court in All India Sat Samaj v. Deputy commr. H. R. and C. E. 2 as also an unreported decision in Writ Appeal No. 498 of 1967, dated 28-2-1973 it was held that the endowments Act is not applicable to Sai mandirs. It was further noticed that a Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1722 of 1989 dated 5-3-1990 had also approved the decision of the Madras High Court. The correctness of the said decision is in question in this writ appeal.
( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that in the earlier decision the provisions of the said Act and in particular the applicability thereof as contained in section 1 (3) (a) and (b) vis-a-vis the power of the Commissioner under Section 87 had not been taken into consideration. The learned Counsel would submit that whether exclusion clause contained in the Act pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof a charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowment is created, attracts the provisions of 1987 Act must be considered having regard to the scope, object and purport thereof. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Shyam kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corpn. 3, union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal4 and Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak committee v. Som Nath Dass5. The learned counsel would urge that the Act not only applies to Hindu religious institutions alone but also to charitable institutions belonging to the other community and other endowments and in this connection our attention has been drawn to a recent Division bench decision of this Court in Parsi zoroastrian Anjuman v. Dy. Commissioner, endowments Dept. 6.
( 6 ) MR. N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand would submit that having regard to the fact that similar institutions have been held to be not coming within the purview of the said Act, the impugned judgment is unassailable. Criticising the order of reference the learned counsel would contend that the purpose for which the reference has been made to this court is now academic inasmuch as before the learned Single Judge as also before the division Bench at the time of admission of this appeal, the parties addressed only
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
