AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by two members of the Gowda Sraswath Brahmin community for quashing a scheme framed by the 1st Respondent, the Cochin Devaswom Board, for management of the Sree Krishnaswami Temple at Cranganore under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 15 of 1950 and for other incidental reliefs.
The management of the above-said temple is vested in She Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community of the locality. In or about 1.11.4 a committee of management was elected by the members of the community assembled in "a Yogam. Subsequently a scheme of management was framed in the year 1122 by the community itself. While so, dissatis--faction arose and an application was filed on 23-1-1124 before the Chief Secretary to Government of Cochin by certain members of the community for permission to file a suit for removal of the committee of management and for framing a scheme.
This application was forwarded to the Cochin Devaswom Board and they were satisfied that the management of the Devaswon by the Yogakars was defective and a scheme should be ''framed by the Board for the proper management of the institution. The then managing committee was removed and a honorary interim trustee of the Dewaswom was appointed by the Board pending settlement of a scheme. Later on the scheme impugned herein was framed by the Board for the temple management. Respondents 2 to 6 were the first elected members of the committee functioning under the scheme.
There is a Samooham at Cranganore called the Sringapurathu Kambola Saraswath Brahmin Samooham which claims the right to conduct ''Anandavritham'' and other festivals in the-temple with the help of funds collected by them. During the time the temple was administered by the interim trustee appointed by the Board, the Samooham, it, would appear, had been allowed a free hand to conduct the festivals on their own. But the first set" of trustees elected under the scheme framed by the Board, wanted to have their own superior position " approach by the President of the Samooham did not intervene promptly. The Anandavritham was coming on 30-9-1955. So this petition has been filed on 28-9-1955 for:
(i) quashing the scheme framed by the Cochin Devaswom Board u/s 93 of Act .15 of 1950;
(ii) cancellation of the proceedings constituting the Respondents 2 to 6 as a committee of management under the scheme; and
(iiii) the issue of appropriate directions restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Samooham in the conduct of the ceremonies to be conducted by them in the temple.
This petition is resisted by tire Devaswom Board as well as the members of the committee. Their main contentions are that the scheme had been framed under proper authority and was perfectly valid and could not be impugned in these-a proceedings. The Petitioners had themselves taken active part in the matter of the framing of the if scheme and were accordingly estopped from questioning .the scheme. The right of management of the temple and therefore the conduct of the care monies in the temple was. necessarily with the members of the committee elected under the same. In any event the Samooham had no locus stand in the matter and the petition filed apparently on behalf. of the Samooham by its Secretary and Treasurer, was unsustainable and liable to be dismissed in limine.
The only question that arises for consideration therefore is whether the scheme framed by the Board under powers vested in it under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 15 of 1950 is in any way invalid Or improper, and secondly whether it is open to the Petitioners to raise this question at all, at any rate by means of a motion of the kind herein.
Before going into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties, it may be well to examine the exact circumstances under which the scheme happened to be framed and the part the Petitioners took therein. As mentioned earlier there was, to begin with, an application dated 23-1-1124 by certain members of the Gowda Saraswath Community at Cranganore complaining against the management of the temple and its affairs filed before the Chief Secretary to Government of Cochin. It is noteworthy that the 2nd Petitioner herein was one of the signatories to that application and the 1st Petitioner was one of the members of the committee in management which was sought to be removed, he being in fact the Vice-president.
The Cochin Devaswom Board to whom that application was directed started with an enquiry u/s 79 of the Ordinance 9 of 1124 corresponding to Section 87 of Act 15 of 1950. After full enquiry the Board was satisfied that the management of the Yogakars had to be terminated and proper management devised under; scheme framed by the Board. A scheme was accordingly prepared by the Board but before its final adoption the Board went through a process of inviting objections thereto as follows.
A draft of the scheme was published in tire Gazette of 3rd August 1954 as required by Section 93 (1) of Act 15 of 1950. The draft scheme was also sent to the present President of the Committee of management viz., the 3rd Respondent herein with directions to convene a meeting of the Yogam and ascertain the views and suggestions of the Yogam on the draft scheme. The Yogam met thereafter on 1-8-1954 and 7-8-1954 in succession when the 2nd Petitioner presided over .the meeting and the, 1st Petitioner was also present.
Neither of these Petitioners raised any objection either to the jurisdiction of the Board to frame a scheme or to the validity or binding nature of the scheme as framed on any ground. The Yogam resolved at the meeting that the only amendment of the scheme which the Yogam wanted to suggest won that the power to amend scheme should be vested in the Yogam instead of in the Board as provided in Clause 58 of the draft scheme. The 2nd Petitioner as president of the Yogam meeting was authorised to communicate the minutes of the said meeting.
Subsequently in response to the publications inviting objections by the Board the Petitioners and others submitted to the Board on 30-10-1954 that they had nothing more to suggest in connection with the (scheme than what was contained in the resolution passed at the meeting of the Yogam and already forwarded to .the Board. It was after these preliminaries that the Board passed the scheme. The scheme as published in the Gazette mentioned that it would come into force on 1-7-1955 and so it did. It is hardly possible after the part so taken by the Petitioners 1 and 2 to question the jurisdiction of the Board to frame the scheme or the validity of the scheme as framed otherwise.
The matter goes a but further even. After the dispute arose between the Samooham and the committee in regard to the performance of the Anandavritham, the president of the Samooham on 22-9-1955 addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Board requesting the Board to give necessary directions to their subordinates and the committee in management to allow the Petitioners to conduct tlie Anandavritham. The Secretary of the Board in his counter affidavit herein refers to this requisition and adds that the Board could not take final decision because this petition had already been filed. .
There is no reason not to accept this statement. But I wish to emphasise here not so much the haste with which the petition herein was filed but The assumption underlying the appeal of the Petitioners to the Board .to intervene in the matter. Such conduct of the Petitioners is consistent only with their conscious .acceptance of the Board''s right of supervision under and by virtue of the scheme they had framed for the temple over the trustees in management. How then could the Samooham or its members now impeach the scheme invoking the extra-'' ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court?
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution; it should always be remembered, requires for its foundation a bona fide and consistent course of conduct on the part of the Petitioners. The relief prayed for by such motions must be deserved by the Petitioner in the real circumstances which prevail. Any attempt at suppression or falsification of facts will meet with a summary dismissal of the petition at the hands of the Court. Taking the above facts into consideration it appears clear that the petition herein suffers from this taint and is lacking in bona fides. Obviously it was presented with a view merely to gain some temporary order of Court to satisfy the vanity of the Samooham representatives as against the stand taken by the present committee of management.
On the merits also the petition does not deserve only consideration. The only two grounds on which learned Counsel seeks to say that the scheme is invalid is firstly that the Sree Krishna-swamy templei in question is not comprised within the definition of ''institution'' in Section 61 (6) of the Act, so much so the Cochin Devaswom Board has no jurisdiction altogether in the matter and secondly the provision in the Act for the framing of a scheme if applicable .to the temple amounts to an infringement of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution. I do not wish to give any concluded opinion in this matter in view not only of the opinion I have already expressed about the tenability of the petition itself but also because disputed questions of fact seem to be involved in this case.
Taking up the first aspect the Petitioners themselves have given inconsistent statements as to the nature of the foundation, for while they refer in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the petition to an aspect of ownership of the temple and its properties by "the members of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin Samooham'''' in paragraph 6 of the affidavit they talk of the inbarcnt in the temple and its properties being vested as of right in the "families of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins of Cranganore and the members of such families alone have right in ''the management".
Assuming that this reference to the Samooham was,'' a slip and the whole community was intended to the referred to and that as owner still the Respondents have a different case on this matter. They say that the temple is understood, to have been built by'' the Perumpuli tarwad, a rich family among the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins in Cranganore and it ,was later on dedicated by them to and used as of right by the Gowda Saraswath community in Cranganore.
This is not the proper forum in which to disentangle the facts as to the exact nature of the instant foundation but this dichotomy may still not make difficult the application of the definition of ''institution'' to the foundation herein. For even accepting the'' aspect of communal ownership relied on by the Petitioners, that could only be true of a .particular generation only and as regards the next or future generations, die idea of ''''dedication to and use as of right'''' taken in by the definition, must necessarily come into play. If therefore the temple and its properties can be deemed to be an institution there can be no doubt the Cochin Devaswom Board has got the necessary jurisdiction to frame the scheme in question.
The next question is whether a law which provides for the framing of a scheme by the Board ; in regard'' to a denominational religious institution is ultra'' vires Article 26 of the Constitution. This question was recently discussed by the Supreme Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt., Dealing with S. 58 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 19 of 1951 which related to the framing of a scheme by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the institutions governed by that Act justice B. K. Mukherjea, as he then was, said as follows:
It is true that it is a Government Officer and not the Court who is given the power to settle the scheme, but we think that ample safeguards have ''been provided in the Act to rectify any error or unjust decision made by the Deputy Commissioner. ''Section'' 61 provides for an appeal to the Commissioner:, against the order of the Deputy Commissioner and there is a right of suit given to a party who is aggrieved by the order, of the Commissioner With a further right of appeal to the High Court.
The emphasis here seems to be on sufficient safeguards. From this point of view, there is the provision made in Section 93(5) of the Travancore Cochin Act, for a right of suit whether the scheme is framed for the first time or by revision of an existing scheme. At page 291 of the report the complete autonomy of the religious denomination in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold is emphasised and is said no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with this decision in such matters.
Applying this test it is not even alleged that there has been, by the framing of the scheme, ''any infringement of the rights of the community in regard to affairs or matters of religion. The scheme in fact relates only to the management -ef the secular affairs and of the properties of the temple and not to matters of religion. As observed in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay and Others,
As regards administration of property which a religious denomination is entitled to own and acquire, it has undoubtedly the right to administer such property but only in accordance with law. This means that the State can regulate the administration of trust properties by means of laws val dly enacted; a law, which takes the right of administration altogether from the religious denomination and vests it in any other or secular authority, would amount to violation of the right Which is guaranteed by Article 26 (d) of the Constitution.
It follows therefore that the provision in the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 15 of 1950 for the'' framing of a scheme by the Cochin Devaswom Board in respect of institutions falling within the declination of institution in Section 61 (6) of the Act is perfectly valid. It further follows that the scheme framed in respect of the Sri Krishna-swami temple, Cranganore, is valid and proceedings constituting Respondents 2 to 6 as the committee of management to administer the affairs of the temple properties are also valid.
And if the position of the Respondents 2 to 6 for purpose of the management of the affairs of the temple is valid, there can be no doubt that ceremonies to be conducted in the temple must be conducted only under their supervision. It is not open to any stranger body however well-intentioned to, say that it must manage the conduct of the ceremonies for itself. All ceremonies in a temple have necessarily to be conducted according to the directions of the trustees for the time being.
If the parties have any complaint against the trustees and their conduct in the affairs of the temple there is enough remedy under the Act. Any help from the members of the Samooham in the better conduct of the festivals with men or money must always be welcome. But it will only lead to caos if the conduct of the festivals and the arrangements in connection therewith have not to be under ,the unified control of the managing authority of the temple for the time being. It is not yet clear to me how far any legal right of the Samooham can be said to have been in any way infringed so as to invoke the exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
On the whole there does not seem to be any merit in the petition. It is therefore dismissed! with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 200/-, one set.