The government's power under S.99 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is visitatorial in nature, and the absence of a period of limitation for its exercise does not prejudice the interest of the religious institution.

O. P. No. 986/1967

1. This is an application for quashing by the issue of an appropriate writ or order the proceedings of government under S: 99 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, for short the Act, evidenced by Ext. P5 cancelling the sanction accorded by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under S.29 of the Act for leasing the forest land in question to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner made an application to the Commissioner on 30-5-1960 for sanction to lease 600 acres of forest land belonging to the Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom. The application was forwarded by the commissioner to the managing trustee with a memo of even date. The trustee made a formal application on 20-6-1960 to the commissioner for sanction for leasing the area to the petitioner. A notice inviting objections to the application under S.29 of the Act was published on 10-11-1960. In pursuance to the notice, objections were filed by certain persons. The objections were heard and overruled, and sanction was given by the commissioner by Ext. P1 order dated 29-12-1960 for leasing the land "for a long period with option to the lessee to continue on the same terms". The premium fixed was Rs. 25/- and the annual rent Rs. 5/-per acre. In pursuance to Ext. P1 order a lease deed was executed by the trustee on 9-6-1961 for 99 years with a provision for renewal. The petitioner filed an application on 4-9-1961 under the M. P. P. F. Act for clear-felling an area of 400 acres out of the property to the District Collector of Palghat. The District Collector rejected the application. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order. On 17-8-1969 the government allowed the appeal by Ext. P2 order. On 7-6-1965 and 7-9-1966 government issued notices under S.99 of the Act asking the petitioner to show cause why the order sanctioning the lease (Ext. P1) should not be cancelled. The latter notice is marked Ext. P3 in this proceeding. The petitioner filed a representation (Ext. P4) on 8-10-1966. After hearing the parties government passed Ext. P5 order on 23-2-1967 cancelling the sanction accorded by Ext. P1.

3. In Ext. P5 government found that sanctioning the lease for a long term without any provision for revision of rent at intervals was prejudicial to the interest of the devaswom concerned, that the commissioner did not call for any report on the question whether there were tree-growths in the area proposed to be leased, that the premium fixed was low, that there was no clear demarcation of the boundaries of the property sanctioned to be leased, that the commissioner showed undue haste in receiving the application dated 30-5-1960 from the petitioner and forwarding it to the managing trustee with his memo of even date through the petitioner himself, and that the lease was not supported by necessity, nor was it beneficial to the devaswom.

4. The petitioner submitted that Ext. P5 is bad for the following reasons: The government had no jurisdiction to interfere with Ext. P1 order under S.99 of the Act after the lapse of an unreasonably long period: If S.99 is read as implying no period within which the power of revision is to be exercised, the section will be bad for offending Arts, 14 and 19 of the Constitution: The government made representation to him that the sanction for the lease is valid, and so the government was estopped from

invoking its power under S.99 for cancelling the sanction: Ext. P5 order is vitiated by mala fides: There is violation of the principles of natural justice in that a representation by the trustee was taken into consideration by the government in passing Ext. P5 order without a copy of it having been given to the petitioner: There are no materials to support the findings of the government in Ext. P5.

5. In support of the first ground it was argued that a copy of Ext. P1 order was communicated to the government under S.29 (3), that the order itself was published in the gazette, and so the government