Applicability of the provisions to a community of religions domination.

This application relates to Sri Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, South Kanara District and was filed by five of the trustees for the issue of a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent, the State of Madras to forbear from enforcing any of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 against the petitioners, the Sri Venkataramana Temple and its endowments. The application was filed after the new Act came into force. The administration of this temple is governed by a scheme framed by the Sub-Court South Kanara, in O.S. No. 26 of 1915 known as the Moolky. Temple Scheme. There are certain peculiar features regarding this temple which can be gathered from the scheme framed in that suit which for convenient reference is added as an appendix to this judgment as the contentions raised turned mostly upon a correct appreciation of the principles underlying the scheme. Under the scheme the general control and the management of the affairs of the temple both secular and religious are vested in the members of the Gowd Saraswath Brahmin community, residing in Moolkypeta, i.e., the villages of Bappanad, Karnad and Manampadi. The Vaideekis who are the temple priests are excluded from this. The actual management of the affairs of the temple, however, has to be conducted by a council of trustees called Moktessors through a Parpathyagar (Manager). Five of the Trustees are elected by an electorate consisting of every member of the community whose name is registered in a book called the register of electors which it is the duty of the trustees to maintain. The qualifications of the electors are enumerated in the scheme as well as the mode of conducting the elections. The Council of Moktessors consists of seven members of whom two shall be the senior members for the time being of the families of U. Srinivasa Shanbhogue and T. Vasudeva Shanbhogue, and the rest shall be elected by the general body of electors. Two out of the seven therefore may be treated as hereditary trustees. The responsibility for the due and proper administration of the trust is laid on the council of Moktessors. Provision is made to elect out of the Moktessors two treasurers, and there are other provisions requiring them to meet periodically and providing for the manner and method of conducting the business at such meetings. It is unnecessary to refer to these details. The Parpathyagar is to be appointed by the Moktessors on a salary of not less than Rs. 75 a month. The rights and duries of the Parpathyagar have been specified in the scheme. It contains as many as 67 clauses. This scheme was in vogue ever since it was settled by Court.

After the new Act came into force on 30th September, 1951, the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments by his memorandum of the 30th September, 1951 issued an order stating that the temple of Sri Venkataramana was included in the list published by the Commissioner under section 38 of the Act. Attempts were being made to enforce the order under the new Act notwithstanding the protests of the trustees. It was therefore apprehended by the petitioners that all the provisions of the new Act will be enforced by the Commissioner. The Act was questioned on the ground that it was ultra vires the State Legislature in so far as its provisions relate to the petitioners’ temple and its endowments, as the Gowd Saraswath Community is a religious denomination which is entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution. It is also further claimed that the Board had no right to impose a contribution under section 76 of the Act, which is a tax the levy of which is prohibited by Article 27. The notification proceedings and the other provisions relating to the control and management of the religious institutions were also attacked. It appears, and it is not disputed, that an original petition is now pending in the District Court, South Kanara, O.P. No. 46