2006 Supreme(AP) 75

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.ROHINI
H.H.Arjun Doss Mahant, Disciple of Guru devender Dass - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Endowments, Endowment department, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 01-27-06

Headnote:A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 - Sections 51, 53, 54, 93 - Maltadhipathi - Removal of - If a Matladhipathi indulges in mismanagement or misappropriation of mutt properties or guilty of breach of trust, he can be removed by initiating proceedings under Section 51.

       Held : math is distinctly different from the temple. Though math is a religious institution the main function of the math is teaching and propagation of Hindu religion and philosophy, sect or sampradaya to which the math belongs, whereas Temple is a place used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or used as a right by the Hindu community of any section thereof as a place of public religious worship.

       The scheme of the Act as can be noted from the above referred provisions shows that the entire administration of a math both in respect of religious as well as secular functions are vested with the mathadhipathi since the same are blended together and inseparable. In view of the said patent distinction, it appears that under section 48 of the Act, the provisions of sections 18,19,20,21,22,25 and 28 under chapter III dealing with Religious Institutions and Endowments are made inapplicable to the maths. Under Chapter V of the Act, a complete different set of provisions are incorporated so far as Maths and specific endowments attached thereto are concerned.

       the State cannot claim any power or authority to take over the management of the math by separating the religious functions and secular affairs of the math. No doubt, in cases qf misconduct or mismanagement of the properties by the mahanth, it is open to the state to initiate action under Section 51 of the act which provides for removal of mathadhipathi. However, the said provision under no circumstances, can be held to have conferred power on the State to continue a custodian to manage the secular affairs of the math indefinitely, in spite of the fact that the vacancy of a mathadhipathi has been filled up on permanent basis under section 53 of the Act.

       In the case on hand, the order dated 6-7-2000 shows that the Commissioner of endowments ordered that the custodian shall be continued for managing the secular affairs of the Mutt on two grounds namely (1) that the administration of the secular affairs of the math at the hands of the successive mathadhipathis was found not in accordance with the established principles in the recent past; and (2) that the petitioner himself had given his consent for appointment of an officer to manage the secular affairs of the mutt.

       It is relevant to note that there is absolutely no allegation of any mismanagement of the properties of the mutt by the petitioner at any point of time. On the other hand, the custodian himself had reported that the petitioner was functioning in a befitting manner and co-operating with the smooth running of the administration of the mutt and on the basis of the said report dated 30-09-1999, the Commissioner of endowments accorded sanction for appointment of the petitioner on permanent basis under Section 53 of the Act.

       The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the allegation of mismanagement of properties was only against the predecessors of the petitioner but not against the petitioner. No other material has been placed before this Court to show that the petitioner herein ever indulged in any mismanagement or misappropriation of the properties of the mutt. At any rate, section 51 (1) (e) of the Act specifically provides for removal of Mathadhipathi if he is guilty of breach of trust, or misappropriation of any property of the math. Section 51 (1) also specifies the other grounds on which the mathadhipathi can be removed. Hence, in case it is established that the petitioner has indulged in any such activities, it is always open to initiate appropriate proceedings under section 51 of the Act.

       It is also relevant to note that under the proceedings dated 27-12-1983 an official of the Endowment Department was appointed as a custodian, only till a Mathadhipathi succeeds to the office according to the provisions of the Act 17 of 1966. As such, having accorded permission to the petitioner to the office of mathadhipathi in terms of section 53 of the Act and particularly in the absence of any allegation of mismanagement or misappropriation of the properties of the mutt by the petitioner, there is absolutely no justifiable reason to continue the custodian to manage the secular affairs of the mutt after the petitioner assumed charge as mathadhipathi.

       So far as the other ground i. e. , the petitioner himself consented to have the affairs managed by the officials is concerned, it is to be noted that the so-called consent by the petitioner in his representation dated 11-7-1996 runs as under:"i have no objection if an officer in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner or superintendent is appointed to assist me in day-to-day administration of the matters of Mutt. "

       Thus, it is clear that the petitioner agreed only to be assisted by an official and it is ununderstandable how the same can be termed as consent for appointment of a custodian to manage the secular affairs of the mutt for ever.

       the right to manage the math, being a fundamental right guaranteed under article 26 of the Constitution of India, cannot be abdicated or waived even with consent.

       The respondents in their counter affidavits could not point out any valid and justifiable reason to continue the custodian.

       the law does not provide for any splitting of office of mathadhipathi into religious functions and administrative affairs and the ingredients of both religious and secular duties are blended together in the rights of a Mahant. Therefore, the petitioner has a right to manage the properties of the mutt so long as he is entitled to hold the office of mathadhipathi. Hence, me impugned action of the Commissioner of endowments in continuing the custodian to manage the secular affairs of the mutt and its properties even after the petitioner assumed the office of mathadhipathi is illegal being contrary to the scheme of the Act, particularly the provisions of Section 53.

       Definition of trustee includes mathadhipathi or mahant in whom the administration and management of a charitable religious institution are vested. Thus, it is clear that mathadhipathi is a trustee of the math in relation to the management of the property of the math or the specific endowment attached to the math. If section 93 of the Act is read in the light of the above definitions of religious institution and trustee it is clear that the Government is competent to call for and examine the record in respect of any administrative or quasijudicial decision taken or order passed under the Act by the Commissioner or any executive Officer or any Trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment other than a math or specific endowment attached to a math. Since the words "other than a math or specific endowment attached to a math" are employed only with reference to the orders passed by an Executive Officer or a Trustee but not with reference to the orders passed by the Commissioner or other officers subordinate to him, it is clear that the math or specific endowment attached to a math has been exempted only with regard to the orders passed or decisions taken by the trustee of a charitable or religious institution or endowment.

       whether the time within which the suo motu power is exercised is reasonable or not, requires to be decided basing on the facts and circumstances of a particular case and the nature of the order sought to be varied.

       Section 53 and Section 54 of the Act are quite different and distinct and there is no overlapping. Whereas Section 53 deals with the procedure to be followed for filling up a permanent vacancy in the office of mathadhipathi, Section 54 (1) provides for the procedure to be followed when an existing mathadhipathi nominates his successor. Even sub-section (2) of Section 54 provides for a situation where the existing mathadhipathi fails to nominate his successor and-there is absolutely no reason to presume that sub-section (2) of Section 54 is attracted when a permanent vacancy arises in the office of Mathadhipathi. There is nothing in the" Act to indicate either expressly or by implication that sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act would apply when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of Mathadhipathi.

       It is also relevant to note that section 54 of the Act begins with the words subject to the provisions of Section 53 . This itself makes clear the intention of the legislature that the provisions of Section 54 of the Act shall not override the provisions of section 53 of the Act. Hence, whenever a permanent vacancy to the office of mathadhipathi occurs, it shall be filled up only in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Act and sub-section (2) of section 54 has no application at all.