The main legal point established in the judgment is the judicial nature of the power exercised by the Deputy Commissioner under section 58(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and the independence of the Deputy Commissioner in exercising judicial and other functions.

N. Varadaraja Iyengar, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is His Holiness Parameswara Bharathigal alias Kannanore Thekkadath Swamiyar Avergal, Head of the Naduvil Mutt, Trichur. And the question raised is about the validity and propriety of certain directions issued by the 1st respondent, State of Madras, to the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Adm) Department, Coimbatore, in the matter of framing a scheme under section 58 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Palghat who was functioning as the Executive Officer of the temples was impleaded as the 3rd respondent. The petition was originally filed before the Madras High Court and was since transferred to this court under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act.

2. The directions in question were contained in the following order dated 4th June 1956.

ORDER

In G. O. (Ms) No. 1796, Revenue dated the 3rd May 1956, the Government permitted the Special Government Pleader to give an undertaking to the High Court that the notification in respect of the temples attached to Naduvil Mutt, Malabar District, would be cancelled by the Government and steps taken to frame a scheme in accordance with the model scheme framed by the High Court in Writ Appeal 117/54. On such undertaking being given, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

2. The Government now direct that notification referred to in para 1 above be cancelled. They also direct that the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Coimbatore shall take steps to frame a scheme under section 58 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 for the administration of the temples attached to Naduvil Mutt on the lines of the draft scheme framed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 117/54.

3. The notification appended to this order will be published in the Fort St. George Gazette.

(By order of the Governor)

T. K. Sankaravadivelu, Secretary to Government.

3. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent was to a certain extent noncommittal. And, though the construction is otherwise clear, the learned Advocate General appearing before me for the State submitted that the issue of directions as above was meant only to express the views of the Government which, along with other matters may be taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent, and certainly was not intended to fetter to any extent the exercise by him, of his statutory powers under section 58 and that if the petitioner wanted, the matter could well be made clear by this court.

3a. Now sub-s.(1) of section 58 says :

S. 58(1) When the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution, a scheme should be settled for the institution, or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing, stating that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution a scheme should be settled for it, the Deputy Commissioner shall consult in the prescribed manner the trustee and the persons having interest and the Area Committee, if any, having jurisdiction over the institution; and if, after such consultation, he is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, he shall by order, frame a scheme of administration for the institution

Section 95 which prescribes the procedure at the inquiry says that the Indian Civil Procedure Code shall be conformed to in the matter and further that the Deputy Commissioner holding the enquiry shall be deemed to be a person acting judicially within the meaning of the Judicial Officers Protection Act 1850. The framing of schemes by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 58 would thus appear to be in the exercise of a Judicial power. See also Sadasib Prakash v State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 432. I