Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK
H.H.Jagadguru Channa Basava, Mahaswamy, Matadhipathi - Appellant
Versus
Comissioner of Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 01-17-97
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 226 - old Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1939 - Section 38 – Appointment – Promotion - Religious Charities and Endowments Religious Institutions and Maths are quite often brought spell of bureaucracy thereby defeating the very goals for which these institutions were founded or established bureaucracy alone cannot blamed for such sorry state by affair - It is expected that by exemplary conduct character piety erudition and dedication spiritual heads should inspire faith in their devotees in particular and people at large in general - But it is quite often complained that modern heads of these institutions by and large tend to imbibe in them art of political and greed to enrichments in terms wealth as well as power at secular and temporal planes rather than pursue age-old path or Nirvana as mandated by great and preceptors and this process bureaucracy and statutory authorities readily find one or other loophole or excuse to usurp powers–Held, Case of official respondents that with death predecessor vacancy office arose - On the other hand even according to Endowment Commissioner could be seen from impugned order third respondent was nominated - If that is so there is absolutely no scope for invoking power granted to Endowment Commissioner Act Endowment Commissioner has power to make an arrangement for administration math only three circumstances and none others Courts so long they operate should be respected and obeyed by the parties and they cannot be permitted directly or indirectly to meddle with the operation of those orders Court do not know whether Endowment Commissioner did this deliberately or out of inadvertence and non-application of mind - Be that as it may Court trust these observations are enough for Endowment Commissioner to reflect on his objectionable action - It is trusted that he would not give any scope for such complaint hereafter ward - Endowment Commissioner has not indicated source of his power to pass two orders impugned in the two writ petitions - However learned Government Pleader traces power of Endowment Commissioner Government to pass the impugned order appointing the third respondent as interim - It is well-settled that when public authority exercises power that power should be traced to an authority granted by law - Government has passed the impugned order on the basis of recommendation of Endowment Commissioner contained in his letter - It is a clear case where the Endowment Commissioner has abdicated statutory power vested in him favour Government for reasons best known to him - Therefore Court hold that order of Government nullity in eye law result and for foregoing reasons writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed - In circumstances of case parties are directed to bear their own costs - It is made clear that this order shall not come in way of Endowment Commissioner taking steps in accordance with law and exercise of powers granted to him under the Act and in light of the observations contained in this judgment – Petition allowed
( 1 ) THE current phenomenon is that Religious Charities and Endowments, Religious Institutions and Maths are quite often brought under the spell of bureaucracy thereby defeating the very goals for which these institutions were founded or established. The bureaucracy alone cannot be balmed for such sorry state by affiars. It is expected that by the exemplary conduct, character, piety, erudition and dedication the spiritual heads should inspire faith in their devotees in particular and the people at large in general. But, it is quite often complained that the modern heads of these institutions, by and large, tend to imbibe in them the art of political manoeuvers and greed to enrichments in terms of wealth as well as power at secular and temporal planes rather than to pursue the age-old path of Moksha or Nirvana as mandated by the great rishis and preceptors and in this process the bureaucracy and the statutory authorities readily find one or the other loophole or excuse to usurp the powers of Mahants, Matadipathis and Shebaits. A solution to the question,the question being who should succeed as Uttaradhikari of the predecessor Mathadhipa-thi, namely, Sri Karibasava Swamy of the Gavi Math Samsthanam, Uravakonda in Anantapur district after his death on 27-12-1991, has been delayed primarily on account of bureaucractic bunglings of the authorities of the Endowment department. I trust but for their unnecessary interferences, the solution should have been found to the vexed question by this time.
( 2 ) AN these writ petitions relate to religious and temporal administration of Gavimath Samsthanam and they raise questions of powers vested in the authorities created under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, for short the Act . Therefore, all these writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
( 3 ) ONE Sri Karibasava Swamy was the Matadhipathi of Govimath of Uravakonda which was founded about more than 300 years ago by Veerasaiva community for the propagation and promotion of the tenets of Veerasaiva cult of Hinduism. According to the customs and usages, the Math should have a Mathadhipathi who has to discharge various sacred, religious as well as secular duties cast upon him and tour several places in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharastra in particular where there are large number of devotees of the math. The Mathadhipathi has to give lectures, hold religious sabhas, perform Poojas, celebrate festivals and feed devotees and disciples. The Mathadhipathi is worshipped by the disciples and devotees with offerings in the shape of lands, money, foodgrains etc. , The Mathadhipathi is held in great veneration by his devotees and disciples. This Institution was registered under Section 38 of the old Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in 1939.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the custom and usage of the math the successor to the Peetham is by way of nomination by prdecessor Mathadhipathi. The predecessor Mathadhipathi, Sri Karibasava Swamy, by the nomination deed dated 18-6-1975, nominated the petitioner H. H. Jagadguru Chenna Basava Mahaswamy as his Uttaradhikari reserving his right to revoke nomination under Clause (6) of the nomination deed. According to the third respondent, the predecessor Mathadhipathi suspended the petitioner on 28-4-1980 on the ground that the petitioner was functioning in a way prejudicial to the math; the Commissioner of Endowment by his proceedings dt. 14-5-1980 ratified the action of the predecessor Mathadhipathi in suspending the petitioner; the petitioner Mibmitled his reply to the charges framed by the predecessor Mathadhipathi on 13-7-1980 and ultimately on 7-4-1981 the predecessor Mathadhipathi revoked the nomination of the petitioner as Uttaraidhikari and dismissed him from the office of Uttaradhikari. It is also the case of the third respondent that the predecessor Mathadhi
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
