Uttamdoss vs The Government of A.P. and Others

Eswara Prasad, J.—The petitioner prays for directions to respondents 1 and 2, the Government of A.P. and the Commissioner of Endowments respectively, to appoint him, or, in the alternative, to appoint the 4th respondent, as full-fledged Mahant, u/s 52 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, with power to discharge religious and secular functions of Sri Swamy Hathi Ramji Mutt, Tirupati, till the rights of the 5th respondent as Matadhipathi are finally decided by competent courts.

The petitioner claims to be the Third Disciple of the 5th respondent - Sri H.H. Devendra Dassji Varu, Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathi Ramji Mutt (''the Mutt for short). The 5th respondent was declared as mahant of the Mutt by the Supreme Court of India. Apart from the petitioner, the other disciples of the 5th respondent are, Sarjidass, Mohandass, Uttamdass, Satgurudass and the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent was appointed as interim mahant to look after the religious activities of the Mutt by the proceedings dated 7-9-90 of the first respondent. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as junior mahant by the 5th respondent by the proceedings dated 5-11-78 while the petitioner was going on pilgrimage. Dispute arose between respondent 1 to 3 on one hand and the 5th respondent on the other. Respondents 1 to 3 took the stand that the 5th respondent is no longer the mahant of the Mutt since he resigned as mahant of the mutt. The 5th respondent disputed the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 and asserted his right to continue as mahant and the matter is pending decision in A.S.No. 172/88 on the file of the District Court, Chittoor. In the meanwhile, treating the office of the Mahant as vacant, the 4th respondent was appointed as interim Mahant, while the third respondent was appointed as custodian of the mutt. The petitioner alleges that the third respondent-custodian indulged in several illegal acts and alienated the mutt properties without any necessity and caused loss and damage to the mutt and its properties. The 2nd respondent has no authority to appoint a custodian and the custodian has no right to deal with the properties of the mutt. The scheme of the Act does not authorise the appointment of a departmental official while there is a Mahant. It is also averred that there is no power to bifurcate the spiritual and secular functions of the mutt. The power of the interim mahant is only limited to look after the religious functions. The interim Mahant cannot be deprived of the right to exercise both spiritual and secular aspects of the mutt. The petitioner therefore prays that either he should be appointed as Mahant or the 4th respondent be permitted to exercise both secular and spiritual powers of the Mahant.

The third respondent-Custodian filed an elaborate counter-affidavit covering the entire history of the mutt and the legal as well as the factual aspects arising in the case. This counter is adopted by respondents 1 and 2.

Sri Swamy Hathi Ramji was the founder of the mutt about six centuries ago. At that time the Mahant of the mutt was in management of Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanams till the year 1933 and the mutt is one of the renowned mutts in India and is the first among the mutts in Tirumala-Tirupathi, owning extensive lands and buildings, not only in the State of Andhra Pradesh but also in other States, apart from vast moveable assets. There were a series of civil suits and writ petitions with respect to the Order of Succession as Mahant, culminating in the5th respondent taking charge as Mahant on 30-4-70. He had to face certain charges of misconduct and, according to the petitioner, he resigned on 10-11-78 and Sri Sarjudassji was recognised as his successor and he was appointed as a Mahant. Later Sri Sarjudassji was also suspended. The 5th respondent took a stand that he continued to be the Mahant and the so-called letter of resignation was a forged one. The said dispute is pending in a civil court. Ultimately, Sri Sarjudassji was also removed and the validity of his removal order is pending in CMA No. 1482/84 in this Court. Another disciple Sri Annapurnadassji put forth his claim for recognition as Mahant which is also pending decision of the Government.

The 4th respondent was appointed as an interim Mahant u/s 52 of the Act, pending final decision of the suit filed by the 5th respondent, and he is functioning as such from 16-9-90. Any permanent vacancy of Mahantship shall be resolved by intervention of Akada Panchayat or by adjudication in a court of law. Mere nomination of any particular person as disciple without Akada Panchayat and Coronation will not confer the right to succeed as Mahant. When Sri Sarjudassji assumed the office of Mahant there was no Coronation and he did not nominate any Sishya as his successor and no futher formalities took place. There was no permanent vacancy in the Office of Mahant there as the claim of the 5th respondent is pending in the civil court. The claim of Sri Annapurnadassji is also pending with the Government. The claim of the 4th respondent is also pending adjudication. The petitioner did not put forth any claim so far. The 4th respondent himself has not questioned the order appointing him as interim Mahant and it is not open to the petitioner to question the same. The petitioner cannot claim to be appointed as Mahant, as he was a student till recently and does not possess the qualifications required u/s 53(2) of the Endowments Act. The third respondent obtained the leave of the court before alienating some of the properties of the mutt in the interests of the mutt itself. The actions of the third respondent were all bona fide. Several development and renovation activities undertaken by the third respondent were in the best interests of the mutt. The Commissioner 2nd respondent has the power to bifurcate the spiritual and secular functions of the Mahant, especially in view of the fact that only an interim Mahant was appointed.

In this counter-affidavit the 4th respondent submitted that his representation to the Government for being appointed as a fullfledged Mahant is pending and that he has no objection to be appointed as fullfledged Mahant, assisted by an officer of the Endowment Department in the management of the affairs of the mutt. He has no objection if the 5th respondent or Sri Sarjudassji is appointed as Mahant.

The 5th respondent states that the averments contained in the affidavit of the petitioner are substantially true and correct. He prays that the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs.

From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the Mahantship of the mutt has not permanently fallen vacant and in the event of the 5th respondent succeeding in the pending litigation, the Office of the Mahant will have to go to him. On the other hand, if the claim of the 5th respondent is rejected the claims of either the petitioner or the claims of Sri Sarjudassji will fall for consideration. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the interim Mahant is justified. No permanent appointment of the Mahant can be made in view of the pending disputes between the parties. Section 52 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (''the Act'', for short) lays down the procedure for filling up of temporary vacancy in the Office of Matadhipati where there is a dispute in regard to the right of succession to the Office and in other circumstances and it is in the following terms:

Section 52: Filling of temporary vacancies in the office of matadhipati.

(1) Where a temporary vacancy occurs in the office of mathadhipathi and there is a dispute in regard to the right of succession to such Office, or where the matadhipathi is a minor and has no guardian fit and willing to act as guardian, or where the mathadhipathi is under suspension under Sub-section (3) of Section 51 the Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied after making an inquiry in this behalf that an arrangement for the administration of the math and its endowments or of the specific endowment, as the case may be, is necessary, make such arrangement as he thinks fit under the disability of the mathadhipathi ceases or another Mathadhipathi succeeds to the office, as the case may be.

(2) In making any such arrangement, the Commissioner shall have due regard to the claims, if any, of the disciples of the math.

(3) ............

From a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that in the event of a temporary vacancy arising in the Office of Mathadhipathi, the Commissioner has the power to make an arrangement for the administration of the math and its endowments in such manner as he thinks fit until another mathadhipati succeeds to the office of the Mathadhipathi. The contention of Sri Venugopala Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the ''arrangement'' contemplated by Section 52 is not by splitting the office of mathadhipathi into a custodian for secular purposes and the appointment of an interim Mahant for spiritual purposes. He submits that the powers of the Mahant cannot at all be splitted and that at best, the Commissioner may appoint a person to assist the Mahant in the management of the secular affairs of the Math. He contends that the order dated 7-9-90 destroyed the very concept of Mahant by placing the third respondent in overall control of the secular affairs of the Math. In fact, the argument of the learned Counsel goes a step further and he contended that the vacancy is a permanent vacancy and the procedure prescribed under Sec .53 of the Act should have been followed. The said argument cannot be countenanced in view of the pending dispute as to the resignation of the 5th respondent.

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt., in support of his contention that conferring only spiritual duties on the mahant would destroy his rights as Superior of the Math. He submitted that Mahant is a religious as well as secular Head of the Math. The contention of the learned Counsel is based on the assumption that the vacancy in the Office of Mahant is a permanent vacancy. As the vacancy is held to be a temporary one, the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted.

The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that custodian of the properties of the Math cannot be permitted to have control over the properties of the Math. The Counter-affidavit of the third respondent reveals that the renovations effected by him were all with the leave of the Court. The several renovations and developmental activities undertaken by the third respondent would show that he is functioning keeping in view the best interests of the Math. The allegation of the petitioner that the third respondent is misusing the properties of the Math is baseless.

Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent contends that the property belonging to the Math is in fact attached to the Office of the Mahant and passed by inheritance to no one who does not fill the Office. He further submitted that the Math is an institutional sanctum presided over by a superior who combines in himself the dual office of being the religious or spiritual head of the particular cult or religious fraternity, and of the manager of the secular properties of the institution of the math, relying on Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1980 SC 707. The principles laid down by the said decision are all applicable to cases where a permanent vacancy of a Mahant arises. In the present case, we are dealing with a situation where an arrangement was made by the Commissioner in respect of a temporary vacancy of mathadhipati. Sri Narayana next relied on Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam and Another Vs. Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) by Legal Representatives, and contended that a mathadhipathi is a manager and custodian of the institution and that the office carries with it the right to manage and possess the endowed properties on behalf of the math. There can be no dispute with regard to the powers of a mahant. As early as in 1954, the Supreme Court in Commissioner HRE. Madras (1 supra) recognised that in the conception of Mahantship, both the elements of office and property of duties and personal interest are blended together and neither can be detached from the other. The said declaration of law was reiterated in a catena of cases and cannot be disputed. It was clearly laid down that a Mahanfs duty is not simply to manage the temporalities of a Math. He is the head and superior of spiritual fraternity and the purpose of math is to encourage and foster spiritual training by maintenance of a competent line of teachers who could impart religious instructions to the disciples and followers of the math and try to strengthen the doctrines of the particular school or order, of which they profess to be adherents. It was further recognised that the said purpose cannot be served if the restrictions are such as would bring the Mathadhipati down to the level of a servant under a State department.

Due to the various disputes enumerated above, which are pending adjudication before various fora, the Commissioner was faced with a situation where he had to make an ''arrangement'' to fill up the temporary gap. May be that the long pendency of the litigation made the temporary arrangement appear to be a permanent one. All the same, it cannot be taken as a permanent arrangement. Until the rights of the 5th respondent are decided by the Court and thereafter the Government adjudicate on the representation of Sri Sarjudassp, no permanent appointment of a mahant is possible. Under such circumstances, the only question to be considered is whether the arrangement made under the proceedings dated 7-9-90 is in accordance with Section 52 of the Act.

Sri N.V. Surayanarayana Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the vacancy arose is only a temporary vacancy and the appointment of an interim mahant is justified. He contended that the 4th respondent did not question the order dated 7-9-90 and that it is not open to the petitioner to question the said order when the 4th respondent himself did not choose to impugn the order. His further contention is that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as it was presented only on 10-9-91, whereas the order was passed on 7-9-90. The learned Counsel further contended that the petitioner was only a student and is neither qualified nor has the capacity to be a superior head of a Math even on his own showing. The petitioner could put up his claim before the authorities that he is entitled to mahantship.

In Sri Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassjivaru Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, which relates to Sri Swamy Hatiramji Math, it was held that when a Mathadhipati was placed under suspension, the Commissioner can appoint some one to administer the Math and its endowments, u/s 47 Old Act which is, in para materia with Section 52 of the present Act.

In view of the disputes which are pending adjudication between the parties with regard to the right of mahantship, me order appointing an interim mahant, cannot be assailed. In fact, there is no prayer in the writ petition to quash the order dated 7-9-90. In exercising the discretion vested u/s 52 of the Act, the Commissioner though fit to appoint the 4th respondent as an interim mahant The appointment of the third respondent as custodian to manage the properties of the Math, does not run counter to the spiritual powers conferred on the 4th respondent. As a temporary arrangement, arising out of a temporary vacancy in the office of the Mahant, the order of the Commissioner is reasonable. In view of the fact that the custodian appointed is of a rank of a Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, the prayer in the writ petition to direct respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner cannot be granted, especially in view of the fact that he did not question the appointment of the 4th respondent as interim mahant and in fact, the petitioner prays for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to confer full powers of a mahant on the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent himself did not question the order dated 7-9-90 and the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the regard.

Keeping in mind the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that reasonable restrictions can always be placed upon the rights of the Mahant in the interest of public, the order of the Commissioner in appointing a custodian to be incharge of the secular affairs of the Math, is not illegal and the writ petition has to be dismissed. It is, however necessary that respondents 1 and 2 should act with utmost expedition soon after the disposal of the civil appeal preferred by the 5th respondent and to take action under Sec .53 of the Act. With the above observations, the writ petitions is dismissed, without costs. Advocate''s fee Rs.500/-.