AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.—The defendant in O.S. No.4298 of 1976 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant herein.
The case of the plaintiff can be set out in a nutshell as under: -
The plaintiff is the 44th Madathipathi of Sri Ahobila Mutt Sri Vaishnavite Mutt established from ancient times from the time of its founder, Sri
Adiwan Satagopa Yatindra Maha Desukan about six centuries ago. It has been from that time continuing to function as Sri Vaishnavite Mutt for the
spread of Sri Vaishnavism and for religious ministrations to the devotees called the disciples of the Mutt. The heads of the Mutt have all been
persons who renounced worldly and family life and entrusted as Madathipathis of the Mutt. The 44th Madathipathi succeeded on the death of the
43rd Madathipathi on 24.11.1957. The 44th Madathipathi acted following the traditions set up by the previous heads of the Mutt and has been
administering the affairs of the Mutt both its religious aspect and in its secular aspect with great sincerity and devotion.
While so, on 20.1.1965, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to show cause as to why a scheme should not be framed for
the better administration of the Mutt and its specific endowments attached thereto with a provision to constitute an Advisory Committee to be in
charge of the secular affairs of the Mutt u/s 65 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as
the Act""). In the said notice, it was mentioned that the Madathipathi sold immovable properties owned by the Mutt without obtaining previous
sanction of the Commissioner u/s 34 of the Act and that too, for prices lower than the market rates to the persons interested. The notice set out
certain instances in that regard. In the said notice, it was also mentioned that the funds of the Mutt have been lent to the servants of the Mutt against
the investment rules. The plaintiff submitted his explanation and made representation against the framing of a scheme explaining how the contents of
the notice are contrary to truth. By an order dated 11.3.1976, the Commissioner held that a draft scheme will be issued with a provision to have an
Advisory Committee consisting of five members selected by the Commissioner from the Vadagalai Sri Vaishnavite Sect Sishyas of the Ahobila
Mutt of whom two will be the practising Advocates and that the period of office as Advisors will be three years from the date of appointment and
the mode of selection by the Commissioner will be provided in the scheme. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the defendant for framing a
scheme, the plaintiff instituted the present suit u/s 70 of the Act for setting aside the said order of the Commissioner.
It is contended that framing of a scheme by the Commissioner u/s 65 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the present case is without
jurisdiction and vitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the proceedings. According to the plaintiff, there are also no proper materials to
sustain the order of the Commissioner in relation to his finding as to the proof of various grounds levelled against the plaintiff for framing of a
scheme and assuming without admitting for the purpose of arguments that even if one or some of the grounds are held to be proved, still it did not
justify the framing of a scheme.
According to the plaintiff, the Mutt in question was originally exempted under the Act of 1927 and later on, it was cancelled only to the extent of
the applicability of Sections 69 and 70 of the Act relating to payment of contribution. In 1949, a notification came to be issued which cancelled the
entire order of exemption. That order was challenged in a suit in C.S.No.681 of 1948 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
However, the same was dismissed. An appeal was filed as against the said judgment and that being so, the rights and liabilities has to be
determined only with reference to the said appellate judgment. The appellate judgment was one passed on compromise and the compromise
decree did not accept the validity of the cancellation of the notification granting exemption. A reading of the compromise decree would show that
what was agreed in the appeal was only the applicability of the Act relating to payment of contribution and audit fees. In those circumstances, it is
to be mentioned that the earlier notification exempting the provisions of the Act to the Mutt in question is still in force and the defendant has no
jurisdiction to extent the provisions of the Act to the Ahobila Mutt. Thus, the defendant is precluded by estoppel, equitable, legal and promissory,
from now enforcing any of the provisions of the Endowments Act including the provisions of Section 65 of the Act relating to the framing of a
scheme. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the defendant for framing of a scheme are invalid and null and void. Even assuming that the
defendant had jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the proceedings initiated to frame a scheme is contrary to law and
unsustainable on facts and is therefore liable to be set aside.
The defendant examined only three witnesses of whom C. W-1 was not a member of the staff of the Endowments Department and other two are
former Inspectors of the defendant. None of the said witnesses have spoken from personal knowledge with regard to the charges levelled against
the plaintiff. None of the documents were marked as exhibits in the enquiry, but were given only Exhibit numbers in the Department file itself. In
fact, the documents were not put to the plaintiff''s representative who attended the hearing. In those circumstances, the entire proceedings are
violative of the principles of natural justice and are, therefore, liable to be set aside.
As far as ground No. 1 is concerned, the plaintiff has pointed out that the lands were sold at a time when the Land Ceiling Act was passed. The
plaintiff wanted to safeguard the property of the Mutt by converting it into cash and investing the same. In fact, the properties were sold only for a
reasonable price and the defendant failed to see that the sales effected were made only in the interest of the Mutt, as those lands which were sold
were not yielding good income. That apart, in view of the application of the Cultivating Tenants and Public Trust Act, the Mutt was not realising the
necessary income or even normal income, after selling those lands, the Mutt invested the sale proceeds in proper securities as fully explained in the
proceedings before the Commissioner. In fact, the provisions of the Act do not provide for any consequence of such sale without sanction in so far
as the trustee is concerned, except for annulling the transaction.
So far as ground No.2 that the lands were sold for a price lower than the market price is concerned, the authorities have acted on the reports of
the Revenue Officials and they are nothing but opinion expressed by those staff of the Department. In fact, the Revenue Officials were not
subjected to any cross-examination. The properties in fact, were sold for a proper price after due enquiry and for the then prevailing price.
The ground No.4 refers to purchase of property by the Mutt. In fact, that was done in the interest of the Mutt. In what way the purchase is against
the interest of the Mutt has not been explained. In so far as ground No.6 is concerned, namely, the investments on promissory notes, it has to be
pointed out that it did not result in loss to the Mutt. In fact, there is no finding to that effect. So far as ground No.7 is concerned, namely, sale of
wet lands in Padur village, the same was done only for a proper price and the only complaint is that the sale was effected without obtaining
sanction u/s 34 of the Act. Ground No.9 refers that a sum of Rs. 1,200/- has not been accounted for. In fact, the perusal of the village account
would show that it has been duly accounted for. It is not as if there was any misapplication or misappropriation of the funds. So far as ground No.
10 is concerned, the defendant failed to advert that the agreement had been concluded long before the notification. The sale deeds were executed
only pursuant to such agreement, but of course, after the notification. Here again, the Commissioner has not recorded a finding that the sales were
detrimental to the interests of the Mutt. Thus, the plaintiff would submit that none of the charges levelled against him would justify the defendant for
framing of a scheme.
So far as the sale of the lands are concerned, the plaintiff was under the impression that the exemption, which was granted from time immemorial
and conferred under the Act of 1927, was continuing and so he did not apply for sanction. In fact, Section 34 of the Act does not lay down that it
is for the Madathipathi or Trustee to apply for sanction and that being so, it is for the purchaser to protect his interest by applying for necessary
sanction. Even when such permission is sought for, the Department takes its own time which runs to several years. Hence, action had to be taken
whenever a good offer is received and none of these transactions have been made against the interests of the Mutt or the Mutt had lost any
property or money under these transactions. While preserving the properties which are yielding good income, such properties, which are not
yielding any income or yielding low income had to be sold for a good price and the monies were invested in either profitable investment or
property. To say that permission must be obtained even to lend monies to temple servants will work injustice to those sincere staff, since the
temple servants are poorly paid and in urgent necessities they could not go to any other person excepting the head of the Mutt for immediate relief.
If again sanction is to be obtained for lending monies to the servants of the Mutt, it will not be available to the persons in distress and considering
the position of the Mutt, the plaintiff had to relieve the temporary financial difficulties of the temple servants.
The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that none of the charges levelled against him have been proved and that there has been certainly no
mismanagement of the properties of the Mutt and there are absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to justify the Commissioner''s decision that a
scheme should be framed. The plaintiff sought for a decree cancelling the order of the defendant dated 11.3.1976 in O.A.No.3 of 1973.
The defendant filed a written statement denying various claims made by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the suit is premature and that
the plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the present claim. The defendant would plead that the exemption which was originally granted to the
plaintiff was withdrawn in the year 1947. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.681 of 1948 which was partly decreed and
withdrawal of exemption was upheld. Questioning the correctness of the same, the plaintiff and the defendant filed appeals in O.S.A. Nos.114 of
1953 and 142 of 1953. Those appeals were compromised between the parties. The said compromise only related to levy and demand of
contribution and audit fee. The said compromise was however silent as to the exercise of other powers under the Act. This could only mean that
the jurisdiction and power of the Government and the Department in other respects are fully admitted by the plaintiff herein.
According to the defendant, it received complaints regarding mismanagement by the Madathipathi that he sold immovable properties belonging to
the Mutt resulting in heavy loss to the institution. Such sales were effected without obtaining prior sanction as contemplated u/s 34 of the Act. The
Commissioner desired framing of a scheme u/s 65 of the Act to ensure proper and effective management of the Mutt''s properties and in the notice
issued to the plaintiff in O.A.No.3 of 1973, a draft scheme was proposed to be framed. The said notice gave complete details and the grounds on
which a scheme was found necessary. For that purpose, an enquiry was posted to 21.5.1976. In the mean time, the plaintiff hurriedly rushed to the
Court and filed the above suit. No suit would lie u/s 70(1) of the Act 22 of 1959 against the proposed draft scheme unless and until the
Commissioner passed a final order after considering the objection, if any, filed by the aggrieved party. According to the defendant, the suit is
premature. That apart, the suit itself ought to have been filed in the Court having jurisdiction in Chengleput or North Arcot District as per the
provisions of the Act and that being so, the suit is incompetent.
The Commissioner, only after examining the entire matter and only on the basis of the evidence available, came to the conclusion that a scheme
should be framed and for which purpose, before passing an order desired to know the suggestion of the Mutt as well as other persons interested.
The fact that a draft scheme was framed by the Commissioner when the exemption of the Mutt from the provisions of the Act continued and even
during the pendency of the suit as well as Original Side Appeal was denied. The proceedings for framing of the scheme are legal and valid and
were initiated strictly adhering to law and the same are warranted on the facts and circumstances and no principle of natural justice is violated. In
fact, the charges levelled against the plaintiff are borne out by records and on the basis of the materials, an adverse inference can be drawn. The
plaintiff was also given adequate opportunity at the enquiry and he could have cross-examined the witnesses. Exhibits were marked only in the
presence of the plaintiff''s agent and counsel. If a trustee violates any statutory provision, it is open to the authority functioning under the statute to
initiate such action against the delinquent trustee as is called for. As the violation has been persistent in the case of the plaintiff, the Department
initiated the present proceedings to frame a scheme.
The opinion of the revenue officials cannot be termed as private opinion and the plaintiff could have adduced evidence disproving the same. In
some instances, the sales were effected to some relatives of the plaintiff and the same have not been denied. The examination of the materials
reveals that the action of the plaintiff is high handed and in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions. The charge is that instead of cash
consideration, promissory notes have been taken. The plaintiff thus admits the charge. This conduct of the plaintiff is highly irregular and
objectionable. The contention that it was only for the purchaser to obtain the sanction u/s 34 cannot be sustained. The plaintiff himself has applied
for sanction u/s 34 in the case of other Mutt properties. Even assuming there used to be some delay in granting sanction, that cannot be a ground
for the plaintiff to act on his own and effect sales of the Mutt properties without obtaining necessary sanction. As a trustee, the Madathipathi is
bound to act according to law.
The plaintiff filed a reply statement contending that the order of the Commissioner was made u/s 65 of the Act and virtually, it is a final order.
Further the decision of the Court is required in observing the rules of natural justice stated under Rule 5(b) of the Rules framed u/s 65 of the Act
which requires the Commissioner, after considering the objection/suggestion, if any received by him, has reason to believe that a scheme should be
settled, modified or cancelled, he shall give notice to the Trustee about his intention to settle, modify or cancel a scheme of administration of the
Mutt. Without giving such a notice, the Commissioner had come to a decision to settle a scheme and the notice issued by him, which is the subject
matter of the suit, is only about the proposed terms of the scheme and not for inviting objection or suggestion for his decision of settling the scheme
itself. The plaintiff denied the allegation that all the exhibits were marked in the Court and that too, in the presence of plaintiffs agent. All the so
called exhibits are said to be in a file and they were not even shown to the counsel for the plaintiff for perusal and no identification of proving or
cross examination of witnesses in regard to exhibits were done. Neither revenue reports were filed nor any witnesses were examined on them and
no list of witnesses were given to the plaintiff for rebutting such evidence and it is preposterous to suggest that the plaintiff ought to have examined
witnesses to rebut the same allegations not proved by the Department.
At the time of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, four witnesses were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked. On the defendant''s side, one
witness by name Rajagopalan was examined and documents Exs.B-1 to B-34 were filed. The learned trial Judge framed as many as 10 issues for
consideration. The trial Court after elaborately considering oral and documentary evidence held that (1) the exemption originally granted was
validly withdrawn and the compromise entered in O.S.A.Nos.114 of 1953 and 142 of 1953 was only with reference to the contribution to be
made by the plaintiff; (2) the contention of the appellant that the sanction for alienating the property or other properties referred to therein is one to
be obtained by the vendor/executor and not by other party and in this case that was not obtained; (3) the respondent/defendant has not proved
that the plaintiff sold the property for a lesser price and that no evidence has been let in to show that the Mutt was not properly administered; and
(4) the Commissioner while invoking Section 65 of the Act has not followed the procedures.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:-
The suit filed by the plaintiff is premature inasmuch as no final scheme has been passed and in those circumstances, the suit itself is not maintainable.
Even assuming that by the Madathipathi alienating the properties, the Mutt has not suffered any loss, such alienations are violative of Section 34 of
the Act. Management, if not in conformity with the law, has to be only characterised as mismanagement, which would warrant the Commissioner to
invoke Section 65 of the Act and for framing of a scheme. The fact that the Madathipathi subsequent to the alienations has done yeoman service to
the Mutt cannot be a factor to condone the violations of Section 34 of the Act by the plaintiff.
We deem it necessary to quote certain provisions under the Act and Rules for the purpose of examining the case of the respective parties.
Section 65 of the Act reads as under: -
power of Commissioner to settle schemes.-
(1) when the commissioner has reason to believe that in the interests of the proper administration of a math or a specific endowment attached to a
math, or when not less than five persons having interest make an application in writing stating that in the interests of the proper administration of the
math, or the specific endowment attached to the math, a scheme should be settled for it, the Commissioner shall consult in the prescribed manner
the trustee and the per sons having interest; and if, after such consultation, he is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, he shall by order,
settle a scheme of administration for the math or the specific endowment attached to the math.
(2) a scheme settled under this section for the administration of math or a specified endowment attached to a math may contain provision for--
(a)... ... ...
Certain Rules have been framed which are called ""Framing of Schemes"". (G.O.No.4851, Revenue, dated 26.11.1960). Rule 5 (a) and (b) of the
said Rules read as under:-
The consultation required sub-sections (1), 4(a) of section 65 shall be made in the following manner:-
(a) When the Commissioner proposes on his own motion to take action under sub-section
(1) or 4(a) or (b) of section 65 or where an application under sub-section (1) is received by him, he shall give notice of his proposal or of the
application, as the case may be, to the trustee or the trustees and the persons having interest calling upon them to submit any representations they
may wish to make before a date to be specified in such notice which shall not be less than two months from the date of its issue.
(b) If, after considering the objections or suggestions, if any, received by him, he has reason to believe that a scheme should be settled, modified or
cancelled, he shall give notice to the trustee or the trustees and the persons having interest, of his intention to settle, modify or cancel a scheme of
administration for the math or a specific endowment attached to a math and call upon them to submit in writing any objections or '' suggestions they
may wish to make before the date specified in such notice for an enquiry.
Rule 7 of the said Rules reads as under:-
Every order of the commissioner settling modifying or cancelling a scheme u/s 65(5) shall be published as follows:-
(i) by affixture on the--
(a) notice board or front door of the math concerned and in the case of a specific endowment attached to a math on the notice board or front door
of the math to which the specific endowment is attached;
(b) notice board of the office of the Municipal Council including the Corporation of Madras or village chavadi concerned;
(c) notice boards of the office of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner concerned; and
(d) by publication in the FORT ST. GEORGE GAZETTE.
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 70 of the Act deals with filing of suits and appeals which reads as under: -
Suits and appeals.- (1) Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner
(i) under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the section 69 and relating to any of the matters specified in section 63, section 64 or section 67; or
(ii) u/s 63, section 64 or section 67 read with sub-section (1)(a), sub-section (1 )(a), (2) or sub-section 4(a) of section 22 or u/s 65; may, within
ninety days from the date of the receipt of such order by him, institute a suit in the court against such order, and the Court may modify or cancel
such order, but it shall have no power to stay the order of the Commissioner pending the disposal of the suit.
(2)... ...
Section 108 of the Act is to the effect that no suit or other legal proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution
can be filed if a provision has been made in the Act itself.
The above provisions lay down the following:-
(1) The Commissioner can invoke Section 65 of the Act suo-motu or on an application in writing, made by the required number of persons.
(2) The Commissioner shall, before deciding to frame a scheme, consult the Trustee and the persons having interest. Notice shall be sent to those
persons by registered post calling upon them to submit their representation before a date to be specified in that notice.
(3) The Commissioner is to consider the objection/suggestion and may drop his proposal to frame a scheme, but, however if he desires to frame a
scheme, he shall give notice to the Trustee and the persons having interest of his intention to settle a scheme for the administration of the Mutt and
call upon them to submit in writing any objection or suggestion before a specified date.
(4) The Commissioner, keeping in mind their objection or suggestion submitted by those persons, shall frame the scheme of administration.
Thereafter, the scheme shall be published in the gazette.
Let us now proceed to consider as to what happened in the case on hand. The defendant/Commissioner received complaints of mismanagement
of Mutt properties, in the sense that immovable properties belonging to the Mutt were being sold without obtaining necessary sanction as
contemplated u/s 34 of the Act. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 18.8.1964 to the plaintiff calling for an explanation. The
notice, though is dated 18.8.1964, was signed by the Commissioner on 3.9.1964 and the same was served on the Madathipathi on 7.9.1964. The
reply sent by the plaintiff is dated 1.10.1964. An enquiry was conducted only in the year 1975, that is to say, after a decade. The proceedings of
the enquiry were annexed to the notice dated 11.3.1976 intimating enquiry date. In fact, in the said proceedings, in the very first page after the
opening paragraph, it is mentioned as under,
Annexure to Order dated 11.3.1976
The last paragraph of the said proceedings mentions that a draft scheme will issue with a provision to have an advisory committee consisting of five
members selected by the Commissioner from the Vadagalai Srivaishnavite sect and the Sishyas of the Ahobila Mutt, of whom two will be
practising advocates and that the period of office as advisers will be three years from the date of appointment.
The Commissioner sent a notice dated 11.3.1976 (along with a copy of the enquiry proceedings referred already) and in paragraph 3 it is
mentioned that the Commissioner held an enquiry into the various acts of mismanagement, etc., and has proposed to settle a scheme of
administration in exercise of his powers vested in him u/s 65 of the Act. The notice further mentions that an enquiry will be held at 2.00 p.m. on
21.5.1976 and the Madathipathi and the persons having interest can appear and place their objections/suggestions, if any. The notice also contains
a draft scheme (containing 22 clauses).
First let us proceed to consider the contention of the appellant whether the suit is premature since the plaintiff was issued with only a notice
inviting him for an enquiry and no order u/s 65 of the Act was passed and the notice mentions only a draft scheme and not a final scheme. The
notice dated 11.3.1976 intimating the date of enquiry and draft scheme was sent with the annexure viz., the enquiry report.
The enquiry report (proceedings) does not carry any date. It appears that enquiry was conducted only in the year 1975 i.e., after a decade, after
receiving the explanation of the plaintiff to the show cause notice. The first page of the enquiry report mentions as under,
Suo motu proceedings u/s 65 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) for the
settlement of a Scheme for the Administration of the above said Mutt. Annexure to Order dated: 11.3.1976.
(Emphasis supplied)
The last paragraph of the said proceedings mentions that a draft scheme will issue with a provision to have an advisory Committee and also setting
out the details with regard to constitution of such Committee and other details. The notice, after fixing the time and date of enquiry, gives details
with regard to the draft scheme (draft scheme sets out 22 clauses). The copy of the draft scheme was sent to various authorities including
Government Press. To quote the exact wordings, we find,
Copy to Director of Stationary and Printing, Madras-1 for publication in the Government Gazette"".
It is not known why the Commissioner desired to publish the draft scheme in the Gazette. The Act and Rules do not contemplate the
Commissioner preparing a draft scheme and then a final scheme. All the above would clearly show that the Commissioner had prejudged the issue
viz., that he even at the time of conclusion of the enquiry, decided to frame the scheme. Though the word notice is mentioned, in his communication
dated 11.3.1976, purporting to intimate the Madathipathi and others about the enquiry to be held on 21.5.1976, the said communication was in
effect only an order passed by him. This is the only conclusion this Court can arrive at in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Once this Court
comes to such a conclusion that the communication dated 11.3.1976 is only an order u/s 65 of the Act, then a suit would lie u/s 70 of the Act. It is
futile on the part of the respondent/defendant to contend that he did not pass any order u/s 65 of the Act and that the suit is premature.
The next question is whether the Commissioner had followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules. We have already set out
the relevant provisions in the Act as well as in the Rules. The first violation by the Commissioner was that he had failed to give notice to the
Madathipathi and others having interest, calling upon them to send their suggestions/objections, if any, before a particular date for his proposal to
form a scheme as contemplated under Rule 5(a). The Commissioner cannot be heard to say that his giving show cause notice to the Madathipathi
and considering his explanation would satisfy the requirements under Rule 5(a). As per the Rule, once the Commissioner is satisfied that a scheme
has to be framed, then he has to give another notice under Rule 5(b) calling for objections/suggestions before a given date from the Madathipathi
and the persons interested, even before drafting a scheme. But in this case, he had sent the draft scheme itself along with the notice. The Act or
Rules do not contemplate the Commissioner framing a draft scheme and then a final scheme. Further, Rule 5(b) is only to the effect that he has to
call for objections/suggestions from the Madathipathi and other persons interested which they could send on or before the date to be specified by
him before a scheme is framed. The provisions do not contemplate the Commissioner conducting an enquiry as mentioned in the impugned notice.
All that Rule 65(7) lays down is that every order of the Commissioner settling a scheme u/s 65(5) shall be published in the Gazette. But in this case,
curiously the Commissioner had sent the copy of the draft scheme for publication in the Government Gazette.
At this juncture, it is relevant to point out the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1976 LW 599 (Navaneetham v. Commissioner,
H.R. & C.E., Madras), wherein the Division Bench has held as under,
It stands to reason, therefore, that the persons entrusted with authority to frame a scheme should have due regard to the wishes of the founder and
the interests of the institution before they introduce third parties into the management. ..
.. .. The words in the statute which require it are not intended to be a mere formula to be adopted for every case, regardless of the facts and
circumstances, but a real requirement on which the authority concerned has to be fairly satisfied. The satisfaction in that regard will be more or less
in the nature of a quasi-judicial one.
The above facts and circumstances would show beyond any doubt that the Commissioner had not followed the procedure laid down under the Act
and Rules while taking action u/s 65 of the Act.
For the above reasons, we come to the conclusion that the order dated 11.3.1976, though purported to be a notice issued, is liable to be
cancelled on the ground that the entire procedure followed by the Commissioner which ultimately culminated in the issue of such order/notice is
contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Consequently, we quash/cancel the said notice.
The next question is as to what should follow. Is it that the Commissioner has to take proceedings afresh in conformity with the Act and Rules?
Section 65 of the Act is to the effect that the Commissioner can act suo-motu or on an application in writing made by five or more persons bringing
to the notice of the Commissioner about the improper administration of the Mutt. It does not speak of any limitation.
Even assuming that at this distance of time, the Commissioner can take proceedings afresh u/s 65 of the Act, the question is Whether the same
would be just, proper and reasonable, has to be considered.
Admittedly the sales were effected between 1960 and 1962 by the 44th Madathipathi without obtaining sanction u/s 34 of the Act. The
Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 18.8.1964 to the plaintiff calling upon him to explain as to why a scheme should not be settled for
the better administration. This notice was received by the plaintiff-Madathipathi on 7.9.1964 and the Madathipathi sent his reply on 1.10.1964.
There was a lull for more than a decade. An enquiry was conducted and in which three witnesses were examined, out of whom two were the
departmental staff. It is not clear from the record as to when those witnesses were examined. In the enquiry report it is found O.A. number is given
and that is of the year 1973. We have to only proceed on the basis in the absence of any other material available on record, that even after
receiving the explanation to the show cause notice in 1964, nothing happened for more than 8 years. If that is so, why the matter was kept in cold
storage for such a long time is not known. Whatever it is, thereafter, the Matadhipathi took the onerous task of constructing the Raja Gopuram at
Sri Rangam. On the appeal made by the Madathipathi, huge donations from the public were received which exceeded more than a crore. A
Renovation Committee was formed and in which the Assistant Commissioner was the Secretary, The renovation work was successfully completed
and the religious ceremonies as per the religious custom were also performed. This would show that the public had abundant faith in the
Madathipathi and even the Department actively participated in the renovation work. This would also give a reasonable and clear impression that
the Department later on abandoned its idea of proceeding further in the matter, namely, to frame a scheme. It is not the case of the department that
subsequent to 1962 there have been similar or other violations of the provisions of the Act. The 44th Madathipathi, whose alienations are being
questioned, ascended the ''Peedam'' in 1957, continued so till 22.10.1991 and somewhere in October 1992 he breathed his last. Even during his
life time, he nominated the present Madathipathi as his successor and he has been so functioning since 22.10.1991 and there are no complaints
against the present 45th Madathipathi. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the 45th Madathipathi would file
an affidavit before this Court within three weeks, making it clear that he will abide by the provisions of the Act and Rules. In view of the above
subsequent developments this Court is of the considered view that it should be made clear that the defendant-Commissioner shall not at this
distance of time take proceedings afresh u/s 65 of the Act concerning the sales effected by the late 44th Madathipathi between 1960 and 1962
violating Section 34 of the Act.
The legal position that the Court can, while examining the matter, take note of the subsequent events is well settled and suffice to point out
certain rulings, namely, (1) P. Purushottam Reddy and Another Vs. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2) Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt Vs. Rashiklal Manilal Shah
and Another, and (3) Patterson V. Alabama ( 1934 (294) US 600). 18. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.