1. Notification extending the administration of a religious institution under Section 64(4) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 — Challenge to validity. (Para 1 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
10th February, 1965
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Sri-la Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidi, Appellant
Versus
State of Madras and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Advocate for Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. Ranganatham Chetty, Senior Advocate (Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.
The power to extend or cancel a notification regarding the management of a religious institution under Section 64(4) of the Act is quasi-judicial and requires compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Section 64(4) - Notification of religious institutions - Extension of notification - Whether the decision to extend or cancel a notification is administrative or quasi-judicial - Decision to extend or cancel a notification requires considering whether supervision is required in the interests of public good, similar to the initial notification process - Such proceedings are quasi-judicial and require compliance with the principles of natural justice, including the opportunity for the trustee to show cause. (Paras 14-16)
(B) Writ Petition - Plea raised in rejoinder - If a plea is expressly taken in the affidavit-in-rejoinder and the respondents have full notice of the ground during arguments, the court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the plea was not mentioned in the first affidavit. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
A temple with specific endowments managed by hereditary trustees was brought under the control of a statutory board via a notification. This notification was subsequently extended by the respondent State for a further period of five years. The hereditary trustee challenged the extension, arguing that the failure to provide an opportunity to show cause violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court acknowledged the quasi-judicial nature of the order but refused the writ on technical grounds and the imminent expiry of the notification.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the process of deciding whether to extend or cancel a notification is similar to the process of issuing the initial notification, involving an assessment of the public good and the necessity of supervision. Therefore, the respondent State was obligated to give notice to the affected party.
Issues: The main issues were whether the order passed under Section 64(4) of the Act is a quasi-judicial order requiring compliance with the principles of natural justice, and whether the High Court was justified in refusing the writ on technical grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to extend or cancel a notification under Section 64(4) is quasi-judicial because it requires the government to consider relevant facts regarding the management of the endowment and the public interest, mirroring the process under Section 64(3). Consequently, the principles of natural justice must be followed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the power to extend a notification under Section 64(4) is administrative or quasi-judicial, and whether the principles of natural justice require a prior hearing. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 )
3. The process of extending or cancelling a notification under Section 64(4) is similar to the initial notification process, requiring an evaluation of public good and trustee rights. (Para 14 , 16 )
4. Orders passed under Section 64(4) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 are quasi-judicial and necessitate compliance with the principles of natural justice. (Para 16 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Notification issued under Section 64(4) quashed. (Para 19 )
6. Is the power to extend or cancel a notification under Section 64(4) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, administrative or quasi-judicial?
It is quasi-judicial. The court held that the process of deciding whether to extend or cancel a notification is similar to the initial notification process, as it requires determining if supervision is necessary for the public good. (Para 16 )
7. Does the principle of natural justice apply to the extension of a notification under Section 64(4)?
Yes. Because the order is quasi-judicial and affects the rights of the trustee, the government must provide the trustee an opportunity to show cause before extending the notification. (Para 16 )
8. Can a court refuse to grant a writ on the ground that the impugned order will soon expire?
Not if subsequent legislation has extended the statutory life of the order or if the order continues to operate without the party having had a fair hearing. (Para 18 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : On August 4, 1956, the Governor of Madras issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-s. (4) of S. 64 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951) directing that notification No. 638, dated the 25th May, 1937, relating to Sri Thiyagarajaswami Temple. Tiruvarur, Nagapattinam Taluk, Tanjor District be continued for a period of five years from September 30, 1956. The earlier notification which was thus continued had itself been issued by the respondent State of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred on it by cl. (b) of sub-s. (5) of S. 65A of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927), declaring that the temple in question and the specific endowments attached thereto shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter VI-A of the said Act. In other words, the earlier notification which brought the temple of Sri Thiyagarajaswami at Tiruvarur under the purview of the earlier Madras Act has been extended by the notification issued on 4th August, 1956 for a further period of five years. By a writ petition filed by the appellant, Sri-la Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidi. Hereditary Trustee of the Rajan Kattalai of the temple in question, in the High Court of Madras the validity of this latter notification was challenged. The High Court has rejected the pleas raised by the appellant in support of his case that the impugned notification is invalid, and has dismissed the writ petition filed by him. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court. The controversy between the parties as it has been presented before us in appeal, really lies within a very narrow compass, but in order to appreciate the points raised for our decision, it is necessary to set out very briefly the background of the present litigation.
2. In the town of Tiruvarur in Thanjavur District, there is an ancient temple. The Presiding Deity is Sri Thiyagarajaswami. A distinguishing feature of this temple is that apart from an allowance called the Mohini allowance , there is no other property which can be treated as devoted for its general maintenance. A large number of specific endowments called Kattalais with specific reference to special services in the temple, its festivities and several charities in glorification of the principal deity, have, however, been made in respect of this temple. It is said that there are 13 such Kattalais, the important amongst them being Rajan Kattalai, Ulthurai Kattalai, Abisheka Kattalai and Annadanam Kattalai. In respect of these Kattalais, large endowments have been made. According to the appellant, these endowments were made by the Indian Rulers who ruled Thanjavur before the establishment of the British Rule. It appears that the management of each one of these Kattalais is vested in a certain Trustee or Trustees hereditarily. The trusteeship of Rajan Kattalai vests in the head of the Dharamapuram mutt in the Thanjavur district. The Dharamapuram mutt itself has large endowments of lands in Thanjavur and Tirunelveli districts. The head of this mutt is known as Pandarasannadhi and under his management there are about 27 temples. Having regard to the nature of the duties of the head of a mutt of this importance and magnitude, it is not possible for the Pandarasannadhi to supervise all the temples personally, and so Deputies are appointed on his behalf to supervise and look after the management of the various institutions. With regard to the services connected with the Rajan Kattalai in Sri Thiyagarajaswami temple at Thiruvarur, the head of Dharmapuram mutt generally functions through a deputy known as Kattalai Thambiran.
3. Ordinarily, a Kattalai is a specific endowment in respect of which it would be competent for the founder to prescribe the line of trustees for its management, and so, the property endowed for the performance of th
