Validity of the provisions of the Act.

VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. :- These are applications filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution and they raise the question, as to the validity of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners in W. P. No. 71 of 1952 are the hereditary Uralans or trustees of the Karikkat temple in Malabar. On 2-2-1945 the Board of Hindu Religious Endowments framed a scheme for the management of the temple under S. 62 of Madras Act II of 1927 and the same was modified by the District Court, South Malabar by its decree dated 6-1-1950 passed in O. S. No. 5 of 1945. The scheme provides inter alia that there should be a paid manager for the temple to be appointed by the Board from among three persons whose names are to be sent up by the trustees. Troubles arose when the Board rejected all the three names recommended by them. The Uralans felt that the action of the Board was an unwarranted interference with their rights as hereditary trustees. On 26-9-1951 there was a meeting of the Uralans in which one of them Sastrasaram Bahattadripad was elected as the managing trustee and the petitioners were constituted a managing committee.

On 18-11-1951 the Deputy Commissioner under a demand on the petitioners for the production of the account books of the temple and other papers; and as that was not complied with within the time given, he sent a further notice on 3-1-1952 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken against them and the "so-called manager" under S. 89(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. The reply of the petitioners is the present application, wherein they contend that the Act under which the Deputy Commissioner purported to take action is void as being an unconstitutional interference of the State in matters of religion and that in any event the provisions of the scheme which are sought to be put in operation against the petitioners are an invasion of their rights as hereditary trustees and that they have accordingly become void under Art. 13 of the Constitution. The material facts in the other petitions are similar and do not require to be stated in detail. The petitioners are hereditary trustees of temples all of which are governed by schemes more or less of the same pattern as in W. P. No. 71 of 1952. In some of them, W. P. Nos. 84 of 1952, 719 of 1952 and 873 of 1952, Executive Officers have been appointed under the provisions of the Act.

In W. P. No. 676 of 1952 notice has been issued to the petitioner under S. 87(1) of the Act to hand over the records. In W. P. No. 873 of 1952 proceedings have also been taken under S. 87 of the Act, M. C. No. 44 of 1952 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherri, for obtaining possession of the temple and its properties. All these petitions raise the same constitutional issues as W. P. No. 71 of 1952 and we have accordingly heard counsel in all of them on those issues, reserving consideration of the merits of each case for determination after decision of those issues.

2. Counsel for petitioners have urged two contentions in support of these petitions : (1) The impugned Act is void as it vests the administration of religious endowments in what is a department of the State. (2) The provisions of the scheme framed under the Act deprive hereditary trustees of the substance of their rights as such trustees and that they are repugnant to Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and therefore, void.

3. It will be useful, at the outset to notice in broad outline the salient features of the Act in so far as they are material for the present purpose. The object of the statute is, as stated in the short title,

"to provide for the better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras."

For this purpose the Act establishes a heirarchy of officers, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Area Committees, and entrusts the administrat