( 1 ) THE point for decision in this writ appeal is whether the Temple of Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi at Chader-ghat, Hyderabad is one in respect of which the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act) have jurisdiction? The learned single Judge had allowed W. P. No. 17487 of 1987 dated 14-6-1990 following the judgments of the Madras High Court in All India Sai Samaj v. Deputy Commissioner for H. R. and C. E. , (1967) 2 Mad LJ 618 and another judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Kannan v. All India Sai Samaj, (1974) 1 Mad LJ 174 and held that the Act did not apply to a similar Temple of Sai Baba of Shirdi, located in another part of Hyderabad. Following his own judgment in W. P. No. 17487/87, the learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition out of which this writ appeal arises. No counter was filed in the writ petition. We have heard the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner. The first contention is that against the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Ss. 45 and 87, an appeal lay under S. 88 to the District Court and that interference in writ jurisdiction is not called for. We may point out that a similar objection was raised before Kailasam, J. (as he then was) in All India. Sai Samaj v. Deputy Commissioner for H. R. and C. E. unsuccessfully and on further appeal, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in S. Kannan v. All India Sai Samaj, also overruled a similar objection. As the point raised in the writ petition relates to the very applicability of the Act and touches upon the jurisdiction of the authorities, we overrule the objection raised by the learned Advocate General in this case too.

( 2 ) BEFORE going into the question as to who Sri Shirdi Sai Baba. was and what he preached, we would refer to the provisions of the Act. The Act is called the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Sec. 1 (3) (a) states that it applied to all public, charitable institutions and endowments whether registered or not other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954. There is an explanation to this clause which says that the expression public charitable institution and endowments shall include every charitable institution or endowment the administration of which is for the time being vested in any department of Government, or Civil Court, Zilla Parishad, Municipality or Local authority or any company, society or organisation, institution or other person, We are not concerned with S. 1 (3) (a) which relates to charities. We are concerned here with S. 1 (3) (b) which states that the Act applies to, "all Hindu public religious institution and endowment whether registered or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. " In Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar Charities, Tiruchirapalli v. State of Madras, W. P. No. 1034 of 19s7, Balakrishna Aiyer, J. held that the absence of the word, exclusively in the definition in the Madras Act, 1951 did not matter and that the word hindu Religious Institution and Endowments occurring in the title and the preamble meant that the religious institution of endowment must be exclusively hindu . The judgment was affirmed in State of Madras v. Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar Charities, (1960) 2 Mad LJ 591 : (1960) 73 Mad LW 794 by a Division Bench consisting of Rajagopalan and Srinivasan, JJ. That view was again followed by Kailasam, J. (as he then was) in All India Sai Samaj v. Deputy Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. ( (1967) 2 Mad LJ 618) and by the Division Bench in S. Kannan v. All India Sai Samaj, ( (1974) 1 Mad LJ 174) consisting of Veeraswami, C. J. and V. V. Raghavan, J. The view of Balakrishna Iyer, J. was also approved by another Division Bench in Ramanasramam v. Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. , AIR 1961 Mad 265: (1960) 2 Mad LJ 121 which relates to the ashram of Sri Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi. We respectfully follow the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document