The classification of the Devaswom Board and its members as a class was rational and based on intelligible differentia, and had a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute.

C.A. Vaidialingam, J.

1. On a consideration of the Audit Reports of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the years 1953-'54, 1954-'55, and 1955-'56, we issued notice under S.32(9) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Travancore-Cochin Act XV/1950) to the Board and also to the members of the Board to show cause why an order of surcharge should not be passed against them, in respect of the various items mentioned in our order.

2. In response to the said notice, the members of the Board have filed a detailed explanatory statement regarding the various matters mentioned in the Audit Report as also in our order, and they have pleaded that they are not guilty of misappropriation or wilful waste of funds of the institutions, or of gross neglect which has resulted in a loss to the institutions under the management of the Board.

3. Apart from taking this plea, they have also raised the question that the provisions of S.32(9) of the Travancore-Cochin Act XV/1950 is void as being opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore before going into the various irregularities and other matters mentioned in the Auditor's Report, as also the various objections raised by the Board and its members on merits, we decided to hear contentions of the learned counsel on the vires of S.32(9) of the Act. Accordingly, we issued notice to the learned Advocate General.

4. We have heard Mr. T.K. Narayana Pillai, learned counsel for the members of the Board, Mr. V. G. Sankaranarayana Pillai, learned counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, and also the learned Government pleader, on the validity of the provisions contained in S.32(9) of the Act. Excepting sub-section 9 of S.32, no other sub-section in the said section, nor any other provision of the Act has been challenged before us by Mr. T. K. Narayana Pillai, learned counsel for the members of the Board. Therefore, the only question that arises now for decision is as regards the vires of S.32(9) of the Act. Before we deal with the contentions of Mr. T. K. Narayana Pillai, it is desirable to set out the provisions of S.32 of the Act in extenso:-

"Sec. 32 (1) The Board shall keep regular accounts of all receipts and disbursements in respect of the institutions under its administration.

(2) The accounts of the Board shall be audited annually.

(3) The audit shall be made by auditors appointed by the High Court.

(4) Every auditor appointed under this section shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of S.15 of the Travancore Penal Code.

(5) After completing the audit for any year or for any shorter period or for any transaction or series of transactions, as the case may be, the auditor shall send a report to the High Court.

(6) The auditor shall specify in his report, all cases of irregular, illegal or improper expenditure or of failure to recover moneys or other property due to the Board or to the institutions under their management or of loss or waste of money or other property thereof caused by neglect or misconduct.

(7) The auditor shall also report on any other matter relating to the accounts, as may be prescribed, or on which the High Court may require him to report.

(8) The High Court shall send to the Board, a copy of every audit report, and it shall be the duty of the Board to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor and report the same to the High Court.

(9) If, on a consideration of the report of the auditor or otherwise, the High Court thinks that the Board or any member thereof was guilty of misappropriation or wilful waste of the funds of the institutions or of gross neglect resulting in a loss to the institutions under the management of the Board, the High Court may, after giving notice to the Board or the member as the case may be, to show cause why an order of surcharge should not be passed against the Board or the member, and after considering the explanation, if any, pass an order of surcharge against the Board or the member, a