The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of trustees for public Hindu temples under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, must be in accordance with constitutional provisions, and the provisions of Section 39 and Section 41 allowing the Area Committee to appoint trustees were held to be unconstitutional and invalid.

GOPIVALLABHA IYENGAR, J.

( 1 ) AS common questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions, they are heard together and a common order is passed. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4785 of 1969 has been the trustee of three temples, viz. , Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Anjaneya Temple and Somalapura anjaneya Swamy Temple, situate at Maiapanagudi village in Hospet taluk, Bellary District. He is also a devotee of the temples. It is alleged that prior to his being appointed as a trustee, his father was the trustee of the above said institutions, and on his resignation, the petitioner was appointed as a trustee for the aforesaid institutions in November 1060. The Area Committee of Bellary passed a resolution on 30-5-1969, appointing respondents Nos. 5 to 9 as trustees of the above said temples. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution, filed a revision petition before the first respondent under S. 18 of the Madras Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The first respondent passed orders on 21-8-1969 dismissing the petitioner's revision petition. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this writ petition praying that the resolution bearing No. 1421 ADC 168-69 passed by the Area Committee, bellary, on 30-5-1969, and the order dated 21-8-1969 passed by the first respondent be quashed.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in W. P. No. 6542 of 1969 are also devotees of the temples in question. The first petitioner is a hereditary Pujari of Mallikarjuna swamy Temple. They are also aggrieved by the resolution made by the Area Committee on 30-5-1969, appointing respondents 3 to 7, who are respondents 5 to 9 in the connected writ petition, as trustees for a period of five years. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution, have filed the writ petition for a declaration that the resolution dated 30-5-1969 passed by the Area Committee, is illegal, null and void; and respondents 3 to 7 are legally constituted Trustees oi' the temples in question.

( 3 ) FROM the true copy of the resolution of the Area Committee, it is seen that the appointment of the trustees is made in exercise of its powers under S. 41 read with S. 39 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act ). It is contended by petitioners that the Area Committee was not competent to pass the above said resolution, in view of the fact that Ss. 39 and 41 of the Act have been struck down as being invalid by this Court in its decision reported in K. Mukundaraya Shenoy v. State of Mysore.

( 4 ) THE respondents contend that the decision above referred to (1) does not apply to the temples in question. They state that "the temples in question are public Hindu Temples. All Hindus are entitled to worship in the said temples. The decision cited by the petitioners applies to sectional or denominational temples. Art 26 of the Constitution is wholly inapplicable to the present temples. Therefore, it is not correct to state that under S. 41 read with S. 39 of the Act the Area Committee has no power to appoint trustees in respect of public Hindu Temples. " In the decision reported in k. Mukundaraya Shenoy's case 1959 Mys. L. J. 708, the question relating to the validity of ss. 39 and 41 was raised in connection with the temples founded, owned and administered by a community called Gowd Saraswath Brahmin community of Kaup Peta. This Court considered that the said community constituted a religious denomination which had the right to administer the property of the temples in accordance with law. The Court proceeded on the basis that under the scheme of management, the denomination was exercising powers of control and management by appointing trustees of its own choice. In other words, the denomination was exercising its power of control, management and supervision over these institutions through their own representatives elected for that purpose. On an examination of the provisions of the Act, it was observed as hereunder:"if t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document