The finality of the declaration under S.114 and the appropriateness of a civil suit as the remedy.

S. Velu Pillai, J.

1. The two petitioners and others made three applications, Exts. R 1 to R 3, to the Cochin Devaswom Board, the first respondent, for a declaration under S.114 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, which may be referred to hereafter as the Act, that the Azheekal Sri Varaha Devaswom Temple, which may be referred to hereafter as the Temple, is not an 'institution' within the meaning of the Act. S.114, sub-s.(1), (2) and (3) of the Act reads as follows:

114(1). "If any dispute arises as to whether any institution falls within the term 'institution' as defined in Part II of this Act, such dispute shall be decided by the Board and the decision of the Board shall be published in the Gazette."

(2). "Any person affected by a decision of the Board under sub-s.(1) may within six months from the date of publication of the decision of the Board in the Gazette, institute a suit in the court to modify or set aside such decision".

(3). "Subject to the final decree in the suit provided for in sub-s.(2), the decision of the Board shall be final."

An institution is defined by S.61(6) of the Act, the material part of which reads as follows :

61(6). "Institution shall mean a Hindu Religious Institution other than an incorporated or unincorporated Devaswom by whatever designation known, dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu Community or any section thereof and shall include--"

(a), "every Hindu Temple or shrine so dedicated or used as of right by the Hindu Community or any section thereof as a place of religious worship..............."

By Ext. P. 1 the first respondent declared that, the Temple is an institution, and so this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the declaration.

2. It was contended, that the declaration amounted to a finding on a jurisdictional issue and that therefore this court is bound to review the evidence upon which the first respondent has reached this conclusion as a court of fact would do. I cannot accede to this contention, for two reasons, first, that in the form and context in which the matter has come up before me now, no jurisdictional issue is involved and secondly, though certiorari cannot be excluded by sub-s.(1) and (2) of S.114 of the Act, a certain measure of finality is attached to the declaration under S.114. The prayer in the petition being only to quash Ext. P. 1 and, as admitted in paragraph 10(6) of the petitioners' affidavit, there being no substantive proceedings pending before the first respondent, the declaration now made is not related to any pending proceeding. What is meant by a jurisdictional fact may be understood from the following passage in Raman & Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1956 SC 463:

"There may be cases where the jurisdiction of an inferior Tribunal may depend upon the fulfilment of some condition precedent or upon the existence of some particular fact.

Such a fact is collateral to the actual matter which the inferior Tribunal has to try, and the determination of whether it exists or not is logically and in sequence prior to the determination of the actual question which the inferior Tribunal has to try."

Granting that the declaration is preliminary to setting in motion the machinery of the Act in respect of the Temple, the declaration having been made final subject to the result of a Civil Suit, I consider, that the declaration is not open to scrutiny as a jurisdictional fact, though the right of interference by certiorari is not taken away. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case cited :

"there may be Tribunals, however, which by virtue of legislation constituting them, have the powers to determine finally the preliminary facts on which the further exercise of their jurisdiction depends. With respect to them, in such cases, their decision even if wrong on facts or law cannot be corrected by a writ of certiorari."

3. It also seems to me that this is eminently a fit case in