K. RAGHAVENDRA NAYAK v. STATE OF MYSORE — 1973 DIGILAW 251 (KAR)

( 1 ) THIS petition by seven trustees and the temple of which they are the trustees, is directed against the election of a Chairman of the Board of trustees at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant commissioner of the District concerned. The notice of tne result of the proceedings for the election of the Chairman issued under tne signature of the Assistant Commissioner has also been challenged. ( 2 ) IT is only relevant to state a few facts for the disposal of this petition. The temple in question is at Karkal and the deity is Venkataramana. It is not in dispute that it is a denominational temple managed by 14 hereditary trustees. There is, however, some controversy as to the identity of the section of the community which was entitled to manage the same, it is unnecessary for me to examine this controversy for the disposal of this petition. The 14 hereditary trustees on and off were entering into arrangements, sstyled as scheme, in regard to the management of the temple. The last of such schemes is dt. August 7, 1933, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Annexure A to the petition. According to the said arrangement the trustees were entitled to elect a Managing Committee of three persons in order to manage the day-to-day affairs of the temple. It would appear that the last Managing Committee was elected on 29-6-69 and took office with effect from 3c-6-1969. In view of the provision in annexure A that their term shall be for three years only, the poriod of office of such Managing Committee came to an end on 30-6-1972. Thereafter, no fresh Committee appears to have been elected inspite of the endeavours of some of the trustees. This position resulted in a stalemate. Consequently, some of the trustees approached the Deputy Commissioner of the District requesting him to convene a meeting for the purpose of election of a Chairman. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant commissioner to hold a meeting for the purpose and also prescribed the quorum therefor. As a result of this direction, the. Assistant Commissioner issued notice of the meeting to all the 14 trustees (Annexure D) and held a meeting on 11-11-1972. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant commissioner to hold a meeting for the purpose and also prescribed the quorum therefor. As a result of this direction, the. Assistant Commissioner issued notice of the meeting to all the 14 trustees (Annexure D) and held a meeting on 11-11-1972. A copy of the proceedings has been produced as annexure F. In the said meeting only 8 of the trustees presented themselves, and the petitioners herein did not attend. At that meeting respondent 8 herein was elected as the Chairman. The fact of his election was duly notified by the Assistant Commissioner by a 'notification' a copy of which has been produced as Annexure G. Aggrieved by the proceedings held by the Assistant Commissioner and the consequent notification, the petitioners have approached this Court. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel, contended thus : Ss. 39, 41, 42 and 44 of the Madras Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Act, 1951, (Act) have been held to be violative of Art. 26 of the Constitution and therefore invalid and inoperative. Once S. 39 has been declared to be unconstitutional, S. 40 with all its sub-sections must be deemed to be ineffective in respect of a denominational temple of the present nature. It is therefore, submitted that it is no part of the duty of the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner to convene a meeting, much less are the trustees entitled to elect the Chairman pursuant to S. 40 (2) of that Act. In this view, the petitioners have requested for the quashing of Annexures F and G by the issue of an appropriate direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the contesting respondents, Sri B. P. Holla, the learned Counsel, contended that the striking down of S. 39 of the above act would not render the entire S. 40 otiose. It may, at best, render sub- sec. (1) of S. 40 ineffective leaving sub-sec. (2) fully in operation and sub- sec. (3) being protanto applicable to any case falling under sub-sec. (2 ). He also relied on Rule 15 of the Rules framed pursuant to the power vesting in the Government under S. 100 (2) (h) of the Act. It may, at best, render sub- sec. (1) of S. 40 ineffective leaving sub-sec. (2) fully in operation and sub- sec. (3) being protanto applicable to any case falling under sub-sec. (2 ). He also relied on Rule 15 of the Rules framed pursuant to the power vesting in the Government under S. 100 (2) (h) of the Act. According to the said Rule, it is open to the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner to convene a meeting for the purpose of election of the Chairman to a Board of Trustees. It is further submitted that S. 40 (2) is a general provision applicable to all the institutions which would not fall within the purview of S. 39 read with S. 40 (1) of the Act. He also submits that annexure G, although styled as a notification, is only a publication of the result of the proceedings and is apparently intended as a notice to all concerned. ( 5 ) ON giving my anxious consideration to the above contentions, I am of the view that the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents must be accepted as well founded. ( 6 ) I shall first consider the nature and scope of Annexure A, which is styled as a scheme by the trustees concerned. Ex facie, it makes it clear that it is a record of the proceedings of the trustees. Secondly, it is seen from Clause (w) of para 10 thereof that it is intended as an arrangement of convenience for the purpose of carrying on the administration. Reliance on certain Clauses therein was placed on behalf of the petitioners, relative to the election of the members of the Managing Committee and the quorum for the meeting to be held for that purpose. Reading this arrangement as a whole I am inclined to hold that it is an intenal arrangement between, the trustees for the purpose of ensuring the carrying on of the administration of the temple and not a scheme as it is generally understood in the context of S. 92 CPC and S. 58 of the present Act. That being so, it cannot have the effect cf overriding any statutory provision which is intended to regulate the administration of religious institutions such as the one with which we are concerned, without interfering with its religious, and such other managerial functions of the temple. That being so, it cannot have the effect cf overriding any statutory provision which is intended to regulate the administration of religious institutions such as the one with which we are concerned, without interfering with its religious, and such other managerial functions of the temple. In other words, if tlieie is any provision in law, to wit in the present Act, providing for mere regulatory functions for the better management of the temple, such a provision would not automatically become ineffective notwithstanding the fact that the temple is a denominational one. It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether there are any provisions in this Statute and Rules providing for the convening of a meeting by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant commissioner and the election of the Chairman. ( 7 ) IT is true that in the decision of this Court in mukundaraya Shenoy v. State of Mysore, 1959 Mys. L. J 702. Ss. 39, 41, 42 and 44 have been struck down. No other decision has been brought to my nothice of this Court or the Supreme court holding a contrary view. We are at present concerned with S. 40 of the Act and Rule 15 only. Incidentally a reference to S. 39 of the Act is necessary. Sec. 39 (1) confers power on the Commissioner to constitute a Board of Trustees in regard to which there is no hereditary trustees and there is no Area Committee to exercise jurisdiction. Sub-sec. (2) thereof provides for such constitution in regard to any religious institution, whether managed by hereditary or other trustees, provided the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that it was not being managed properly. We shall now turn to S. 40. This section reads thus :"40 (1) In the ease of a religious institution for which a Board of trustees is constituted under S. 39, sub-sec. (1), the Board shall elect one of its number to be its Chairman. (2) In the casa pf any other religious institution having more than one trustee, the trustee of such institution shall elect one of their number to be the Chairman. (3) A Chairman elected under sub-see, (1) or sub-see. (2) shall hold office for such period as may be prescribed. " ( 8 ) IT is clear from sub-sec. (2) In the casa pf any other religious institution having more than one trustee, the trustee of such institution shall elect one of their number to be the Chairman. (3) A Chairman elected under sub-see, (1) or sub-see. (2) shall hold office for such period as may be prescribed. " ( 8 ) IT is clear from sub-sec. (1) of the above section that the election of a Chairman to a Board of Trustees can only take place if such Board has been constituted by the Commissioner pursuant to the exercise of his power under sub-sec. (1) of S. 39. In the instant case, there has been no constitution of the Board by the Deputy Commissioner as a fact. Be that as it may, the provisions of S. 39 have been struck down by the aforesaid decision of this Court. In these circumstances, S. 40 (1) is not attracted at all. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 40 refers to, in plain terms all institution other than those which could have been dealt with under sub-sec. (1) of S. 39 or sub-sec. (1), of S. 40. In this state of affairs, I am clearly of the view that sub-sec. (2) of S. 40 would be attracted to the present case. But, it is argued by Sri Narayana Rao that that sub-section is exclusively referable to a case coming under S. 41 of the Act, whereby the Board of Trustees might be constituted by the Area Committee. There is no fores in this contention. If the intention of the legislature was that sub-sec. (2) of S. 40 should apply only in cases falling under S. 41 of the Act, it would have said so in express terms as has been done in sub-sees. (1) and (2) of that section. ( 9 ) I now turn to the election of a Chairman at a meeting convened by the Assistant Commissioner, as in the instant case. Sub-sec. (2) of s. 40 clearly enjoins the election of a Chairman to a Board of Trustees. Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act provides that the Assistant commissioner could convene a meeting for the purpose of the election of a chairman. This provision in the Rule is plainly intended to subserve the object intended by the legislature bearing on the question of election of a Chairman. This Rule reads thus :"15. Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act provides that the Assistant commissioner could convene a meeting for the purpose of the election of a chairman. This provision in the Rule is plainly intended to subserve the object intended by the legislature bearing on the question of election of a Chairman. This Rule reads thus :"15. Election of the Chairma shall be made at a special meeting and shall be by secret ballot. When there is no Chairman in office for convening a special meeting, the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the institution is situate or any officer specifically authorised by him in this behalf shall convene the special meetings and preside over them. He shall not, however, have power to vote. If the voting results in a tie a second vote shall be taken; if again it ends in a tie, the Presiding Officer shall cast lots and the person in whose favour the lot is drawn shall be deemed to be elected. " ( 10 ) A combined reading of S. 40 (2) and Rule 15, would clearly afford a legal basis for the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexures F and G. I am not, therefore, inclined to accept the petition. ( 11 ) IN the result, this petition is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .