Back
1992 Supreme(AP) 281
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.ESWARA PRASAD
Uttamdoss - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-29-92
The Commissioner has the power to make arrangements for the administration of a Math and its endowments in case of a temporary vacancy in the office of Matadhipati, including the appointment of an interim Mahant and a custodian to manage the properties of the Math.
Headnote:
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS - APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM MAHANT - TEMPORARY VACANCY - POWER OF COMMISSIONER - A. P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987, SEC. 52 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND EXTENT - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought directions to appoint him or the 4th respondent as full-fledged Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathi Ramji Mutt, Tirupati, under Sec. 52 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, with power to discharge religious and secular functions till the rights of the 5th respondent as Matadhipathi are finally decided by competent courts. The 4th respondent was appointed as interim Mahant, while the 3rd respondent was appointed as custodian of the Mutt.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appointment of an interim Mahant was justified due to a temporary vacancy in the office of the Mahant and the disputes pending adjudication between the parties regarding the right of Mahantship. The court further held that the order appointing the 3rd respondent as custodian to manage the properties of the Math did not run counter to the spiritual powers conferred on the 4th respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of an interim Mahant was justified in light of the temporary vacancy in the office of the Mahant and the pending disputes regarding the right of Mahantship? 2. Whether the order appointing the 3rd respondent as custodian to manage the properties of the Math was illegal and ran counter to the spiritual powers conferred on the 4th respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 52 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 empowers the Commissioner to make arrangements for the administration of a Math and its endowments in case of a temporary vacancy in the office of Matadhipati. The court held that the Commissioner's order appointing an interim Mahant was a reasonable exercise of this power, given the pending disputes and the need to ensure the proper administration of the Math. 2. The court held that the order appointing the 3rd respondent as custodian to manage the properties of the Math was not illegal and did not run counter to the spiritual powers conferred on the 4th respondent. The court noted that the custodian was a Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and that the arrangement was a temporary one, arising out of the temporary vacancy in the office of the Mahant.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court directing respondents 1 and 2 to act with utmost expedition in taking action under Sec. 53 of the Act soon after the disposal of the civil appeal preferred by the 5th respondent.
( 1 ) THE petitioner prays for directions to respondents 1 and 2, the Government of A. P. and the Commissioner of Endowments respectively, to appoint him, or, in the alternative, to appoint the 4th respondent, as full-fledged Mahant, under sec. 52 of A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987, with power to discharge religious and secular functions of Sri Swamy hathi Ramji Mutt, Tirupati, till the rights of the 5th respondent as Matadhipathi are finally decided by competent courts.
( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be the Third Disciple of the 5th respondent - Sri h. H. Devendra Dassji Varu, Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathi Ramji Mutt ( the Mutt for short ). The 5th respondent was declared as mahant of the Mutt by the supreme Court of India. Apart from the petitioner, the other disciples of the 5th respondent are, Sarjidass, Mohandass, Uttamdass, Satgurudass and the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent was appointed as interim mahant to look after the religious activities of the Mutt by the proceedings dated 7-9-90 of the first respondent. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as junior mahant by the 5th respondent by the proceedings dated 5-11-78 while the petitioner was going on pilgrimage. Dispute arose between respondent 1 to 3 on one hand and the 5th respondent on the other. Respondents 1 to 3 took the stand that the 5th respondent is no longer the mahant of the Mutt since he resigned as mahant of the mutt. The 5th respondent disputed the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 and asserted his right to continue as mahant and the matter is pending decision in A. S. No. 172/88 on the file of the District Court, Chittoor. In the meanwhile, treating the office of the Mahant as vacant, the 4th respondent was appointed as interim Mahant, while the third respondent was appointed as custodian of the mutt. The petitioner alleges that the third respondent-custodian indulged in several illegal acts and alienated the mutt properties without any necessity and caused loss and damage to the mutt and its properties. The 2nd respondent has no authority to appoint a custodian and the custodian has no right to deal with the properties of the mutt. The scheme of the Act does not authorise the appointment of a departmental official while there is a Mahant. It is also averred that there is no power to bifurcate the spiritual and secular functions of the mutt. The power of the interim mahant is only limited to look after the religious functions. The interim Mahant cannot be deprived of the right to exercise both spiritual and secular aspects of the mutt. The petitioner therefore prays that either he should be appointed as Mahant or the 4th respondent be permitted to exercise both secular and spiritual powers of the Mahant.
( 3 ) THE third respondent-Custodian filed an elaborate counter-affidavit covering the entire history of the mutt and the legal as well as the factual aspects arising in the case. This counter is adopted by respondents 1 and 2.
( 4 ) SRI Swamy Hathi Ramji was the founder of the mutt about six centuries ago. At that time the Mahant of the mutt was in management of Tirumala- tirupathi Devasthanams till the year 1933 and the mutt is one of the renowned mutts in India and is the first among the mutts in Tirumala-Tirupathi, owning extensive lands and buildings, not only in the State of Andhra Pradesh but also in other States, apart from vast moveable assets. There were a series of civil suits and writ petitions with respect to the Order of Succession as Mahant, culminating in the 5th respondent taking charge as Mahant on 30-4-70. He had to face certain charges of misconduct and, according to the petitioner, he resigned on 10-11-78 and Sri Sarjudassji was recognised as his successor and he was appointed as a mahant. Later Sri Sarjudassji was also suspended. The 5th respondent took a stand that he continued to be the Mahant and the so-called letter of resignation was a forged one. The said d
