A temple with dhwajasthambham, mandapam, prakaram, gopuram, endowment, prathishta, usava vigragam, and no permission required for worship is a public temple.

GOPAL KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, narassraopet, who in O. S. No. 3 of 1960 set aside the order, dated 30th april, 1959. passed by the defendant-Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, declaring the temple of Sri neelakantes waraswamiyaru in Velpur village in Guntur District as a public temple falling within the definition of section 6 (17) of the Hindu Religious and charitable Edowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The salient facts of the case are briefly as follows : a demand for contribution was made on the temple of Sri Neelakantes waraswamivaru already mentioned. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed a petition before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under section 57 of the Act alleging that the temple in question was a private temple and that it was not liable to pay any contribution under the Act. The Deputy commissioner held in favour of the plaintiff holding that the temple in question was a private temple, But a few months later, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments took suo motu proceedings, gave notice to the plaintiff, held an enquiry and. set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and held that the temple in question was a public temple as defined in section 6 (17 ). The plaintiff thereupon, instituted O S. No. 3 of 1960 in the Subordinate judge s Court, Narasaraopet, for a declaration that the order passed by the commissioner was illegal and deviod of jurisdiction and void. He also asked for a permanent injunction to restrain the Commissioner from interfering with the affairs of the temple. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree in favour ot the plaintiff. Hence this appeal. One of the grounds of decreeing the suit in the Court below was that the commissioner purported to take suo motu proceedings under section 61 of the act which he had no power to do. The reasoning was that the Commissioner could not prefer an appeal to himself and decide that appeal in his own favour. This reasoning found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge. It was urged in this appeal by the learned Government Pleader that the view of the. Subordinate Judge is thoroughly incorrect, My attention was drawn by the learned government Pleader to section 18 of! the Act which gives ample power and jurisdiction to the Commissioner to interfere with and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It was not argued on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff that the Commissioner was not entitled to act under section 18 of the Act. The argument of the respondent s learned Counsel was that the commissioner plainly erred in taking his stand on section 61 of the Act which provided for an appeal. Now, if the Commissioner had the power under section 18 of the Act to make the order which he did, I do not think that order can be held to be bad merely because ha referred to section 61 in his order instead of section 18. This position seems to my mind to be well-settled. If an authority exercises a power it must be traced, if possible, to a jurisdiction which can confer validity on that power, and not to a jurisdiction which renders the power nugatory. Vide Hukumchand Mills v, State of M, P. , Mohd. Dastagir v. Additional I. T. O ; and Ahmedalh Esufalli v. Emperor. I am not therefore satisfied thar the order passed by the Commissioner, evidenced by Exhibit A-3 can be held to be void or devoid or jurisdiction merely because the Commissioner wrongly referred to section 61 as the source of his power instead of section 18 which really gave him t he power and jurisdiction, the main question that was argued In this appeal was whether the temple in question is a private temple or a public temple, The learned government Pleader for the appellant has pointed to several circumstances which go to show that: the temple in question is a public temple. I shall immediately refer to them. The temple as the ev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document