Yedlapalli Basava Punnaiah vs Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Others

Satyanarayana Raju, J.—This is an application for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with the Memorandum 6199/54-A2. dated 11-9-1654 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Guntur and R. P. No. 51/54 on the file of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowments, Guntur, and to quash the same.

The Petitioner is a trustee of Sri Venugopalaswamy Temple situate at Mandur ir Tenali talk of the Guntur District. The Petitioner and one K. Nagaiah were appointed as-trustees of Sri Venugopalaswami Temple by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on the 19tlv of January 1951. Under the Andhra Amendment Act VII of 1954 the above trustees ceased to function. They were reappointed as trustees by the Area Committee by its resolution No. 203 dated 26-4-1954. Under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act XIX of 1951) the number of trustees for a temple may be one, three or five. On the 31st of August, 1954, the Area Committee appointed three more trustees, who are Respondents 3 to 5 in the present writ petition. The 1st Respondent is the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Guntur. The 2nd Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner.

The Petitioner alleges that he filed O. S. No. 107 of: 1948 on the file of the, District Munsif''s Court, Pallet, for removal of a construction some of the villagers by en-roaring upon the temple site, that the was decreed for damages on the of August, 1949, that the Defendants pre-an appeal, A. S. No. 117 of 1949 on the Subordinate Judge''s Court, Tenali, which was dismissed on the 28th of February 1950 ; that thereupon they preferred in the High Court S. A. 1355 of 1950 which was decreed in terms of a compromise on the 7th of September, 1954; that throughout these proceedings the Petitioner was the managing trustee but that subsequent to the compromise decree, three more-trustees were appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, one of whom happens to be a person! v/ho filed an application before the Hindu Religious Endowments Board for permission to construct a well, and Anr. happens to be the son of Nagaiah, the trustee appointed along with the Petitioner; that the 5th Respondent is a Vakil who appeared for the Defendants in the appeal; and that appointment of these trustees was made to set at naught the compromise decree passed in S. A. No. 1335 of 1950.

The Petitioner preferred a revision petition R. P. No. 51 of 1954 before the Commissioner for Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments questioning the appointment of Respondents 3 to 5 (in this writ petition) as additional trustees. He complained that the entire proceedings resulting in the appointment of Respondents 3 to 5 were taken behind his back, that the appointment of those Respondents is mala fide, that'' subsequent to their appointment, the sired Respondent was elected as the managing trustee and he has filed M. C. No. 5 of 1955 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrates Court Tenali, for taking possession of the records, etc. from him and that the Petitioner is resisting the said application.

Mr. D. Munikannaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the appointment of persons whose interests are adverse to that of the institution is invalid and that therefore the order appointing them as trustees must be set aside. He concedes that he is not able to allege any specific disqualification with regard to Respondents 3 to 5 but he submits that the appointment of Respondents 3 to 5 would not be conducive to the best interests of the institution.

The 1st Respondent (Commissioner) has filed a counter-affidavit contending inter alia that the Petitioner has a right of Appeal against his order u/s 99 of the Act, which is an effective remedy. He further contends that the -previous management of the temple, by the Petitioner was bad, that he was not depositing large sums of money belonging to the temple in a bank and was thereby causing serious loss to the temple, that it was reported that Puja was not being performed regularly and that the Petitioner could not offer any proper explanation for this irregularity and in view of the acts of mismanagement of the Petitioner, the Area Committee acted rightly in appointing three additional trustees to the temple.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 3 to 5 where; they deny the allegations made by the Petitioner. It is alleged by Respondents 3 to 5 that the. Petitioner has filed the petition with a view to avoid giving charge of the account-books, records of the temple etc., and to avoid detection of his mismanagement of the temple and its endowments and that after the election of the 3rd Respondent as managing trustee, the Petitioner has no right to keep in his possession account-books, records, monies, etc, of the temple.

In his order dated the 12th of May 1955, the Commissioner dealt with the, grounds of attack made against the appointment of additional trustees. He felt satisfied that none of the grounds alleged against Respondents 3 to 5 would invalidate their appointment and he reached the conclusion that no facts had been proved against Respondents 3 to 5 for setting aside the resolution of the Area Committee appointing them as additional trustees.

While not disputing the fact that the Petitioner has a remedy u/s 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the Petitioner''s learned Counsel contends that the fact that the Petitioner has not availed himself of that remedy would not disentitle him to seek relief under Article 226. and he has cited before me a decision of the Madras High Court in M.K. Govinda Reddi Vs. E.K. Pattabhi Rama Reddi and Others, . At page 483 of the report, (Mad LJ): (at p. 165 of AIR) Venkatrama Aiyer, J (as he then was), held that when the decision of the tribunal, which is the subject matter of the writ, is on the face of it, erroneous, it would be a proper exercise of the powers of the High Court to interfere.

The question whether a person''s interests are adverse to that of the institution to which he is appointed as a trustee involves the determination of questions of fact which may not be possible within the limited scope of a writ petition. It is not possible to say that the decision of the Commissioner is on the face of it erroneous. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner himself has conceded that no qualifications have been prescribed for a trustee except that he should not be below 25 and not more than 70. The ground for setting aside their appointment is really that their interests are adverse to the institution, and it is not possible for me to go into these questions of fact. I am also convinced that the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy u/s 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which provides as follows:

99 (I). The Government may call for and examine the record of the Commissioner or any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of any Area Committee or of any trustee in respect of any proceedings, not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a Court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein ; and, if, in any case, it appears to the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly:

Provided that the Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representations.

(2) The Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order, pending the exercise of their powers under Sub-section (1) in respect thereof.

I do not think that the Petitioner has made out a case for the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 100/-.