Provisions of Act, 1951 as noted above if ultra vires Madras State Legislature.

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2591 of 1951*-This and the other connected petitions relating to the Guruvayur temple and the Chidambaram temple were heard together as they all raised the question of the validity of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, Act II of 1927 (hereinafter called the “earlier Act”). While these petitions were pending, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act XIX of 1951) (hereinafter called the “new Act”) which repealed the earlier Act was brought into force by the Madras Government on 30th September, 1951, by a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette. Leave to amend the petitions was granted to the petitioners and they have been permitted to canvass the validity of the new Act as well. Mr. M.K. Nambiyar who appeared for the trustee of the Guruvayur temple argued his petition first and Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and the learned Advocate-General replied to that petition after which the petition relating to Guruvayur temple was allowed to be withdrawn as the Government agreed to cancel the decision to notify the temple and to permit the trustee to function. The arguments addressed by Mr. Nambiyar were adopted by the petitioners in the remaining petitions and they further supplemented the arguments addressed by Mr. Nambiyar.

It will be convenient to deal with C.M.P. No. 2591 first, as it relates to a mutt and covers a wider field than the petition relating to the Chidambaram temple. Some of the arguments are common to both the petitions, particularly the scope of the Articles of the Constitution relied on in support of the petitions as having been infringed by the earlier and the later Acts and also the effect of the two Acts on the rights of the petitioners.

C.M.P. No. 2591 of 1951 was filed by the Matathipathi of Shirur Mutt in the South Kanara District, praying that this Court should issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent, viz., the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, by its President from proceeding with O.A. No. 471 of 1950 to frame a scheme for the administration of the mutt. Under section 103 of the new Act, the Notifications and Orders issued under the earlier Act are treated as notifications or orders made, issued and passed by the appropriate authority under the corresponding provisions of the new Act and as the place of the president, The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, was taken by the Commissioner appointed under the new Act, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, was added as a party in place of the Board by C.M.P. No. 11917 of 1951 with the leave of Court. The relief, therefore, claimed against the Board is treated as a relief against the newly appointed Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras.

Acting under section 62 of the earlier Act, the Board issued the notification dated 6th November, 1950, stating that as the Board was satisfied that the endowments of the Mutt were mismanaged and that in the opinion of the Board a scheme for the administration of the Mutt and its endowments should be settled, 8th December, 1950, was fixed for further enquiry into the matter, and the notice also called upon the trustees and other person interested in the said Mutt to appear and show cause why a scheme of administration should not be settled. The reasons alleged were:

(1) That the trustee of the Mutt had been borrowing moneys without necessity and spending them without taking the sanction of the Board on major constructions for which there was no approved estimates or plans. He has thus involved the institution into further debts and has utterly disregarded the directions issued to him in Memo. No. 75887/46, Adt., dated 13th March, 1947.

(2) Properties belonging to the Mutt have been leased out on low rents and against the interests of the institution.

*[As this is the leading Judgment in which the whole question is discussed and as this Judgement is referred to in the con