JUDGMENT K. Ramaswamy, J.-The petitioners seek to question the vires of Sections 2 (22), 2 (27) and Sections 47 to 55 in Chapter V of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987) (for short,"the Act"). But at the time of hearing Shri K. Parasaran, their learned senior counsel, restricted his arguments to the validity of Sections 50 to 55. The petitioner in the first writ petition is Peetadhipati of the institution known as "Mumukshu Jana Maha Peetham" [for short, Peetham ] in Peda Muktevi village of Movva Mandal in Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh. It was averred therein that the Peetham was founded by one Seetharama Yetendrulu an advocate in the year 1938 and he became a sanyasi. His main philosophy was equality and universality of all religions faiths, good character, gratuitous conduct and devotion to God, far more important than mere rituals. He formed Mumukshu Jana Samajam in 1950. He published several books under that banner. He was running a Telugu magazine by name Mumukshuvu. He started school for the children. He was managing a temple of Lakshmipati Swamy. The devotees collected funds for all those projects by voluntary donation and the amount given through bhiksha [seeking alms]. He donated his ancestral house and purchased 4 acres of land with the aid of Padakanukas [personal gifts]. He died in 1972 and nominated one of his disciples as successor and thereafter with the aid of Padakanukas from thousands of disciples temples were constructed by the first petitioner and were being managed with the Padakanukas given by the devotees. It is not a public endowment but a private trust. The expenses for the maintenance of the math and worship in the temple are being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by the devotees due to reverence which the disciples gave to the mathadhipati. It is, therefore, clear that the above provisions are ultre vires, in their application to the petitioner math. Similar contentions have been raised in all other writ petitions. By their very admission, the petitioner s institution is a math and being managed from personal gifts etc. made by devotees and collected by disciples. 2. Shri Parasaran, the learned senior counsel, contended that Section 48 of the Act excludes application of Sections 18 to 22, 25 and 28 of Chapter III to maths. By their very admission, the petitioner s institution is a math and being managed from personal gifts etc. made by devotees and collected by disciples. 2. Shri Parasaran, the learned senior counsel, contended that Section 48 of the Act excludes application of Sections 18 to 22, 25 and 28 of Chapter III to maths. The other provisions in Chapter III by implication would apply to the maths for the reason that they are no excluded. Sections 34 and 35, therefore, by implication stand attracted to the mathadhipati irrespective of the fact whether mathadhipati falls under the definition of "hereditary trustee" or not. 3. Mathadhipati is the spiritual head to impart religious instructions. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a hereditary trustee nor he be held to hold any office or service or a post by whatever name it is called. Appointment of a mathadhipati is not a secular act. Mathadhipati, indisputably not being a trustee, his appointment is purely a religious act. The nomination of the mathadhipati is based upon usage and custom of the math. It is a concept appertaining to Hindu religious endowment. It is sui generis. One cannot put it in a strait jacket by any Jurisprudential concept. Section 54 imposes recognition of the nomination of a mathadhipati by the Commissioner, an officer of the government, who does not have knowledge of usages or practices prevalent in the relevant math. Imposition of such conditions is an interference with freedom of religion and power to manage religious affairs. Removal of Mahant under Section 51, filling up of vacancy under Section 53, recognition of nomination of Mahant under Section 54 and powers to frame a scheme for the management of a math under Section 55 are untra vires of Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution. The learned counsel elaborated the contentions arguing that the procedure for nomination of the mathadhipati, convening of a meeting with mathadhipatis of other maths of similar Samparadayams as provided under Section 54(2) of the Act, are repugnant to the usage and sampardayams of the same math. Each math is governed by its own usage and Sampardayams. No two maths can be held to be governed by the same set of usages and Sampardayams unless one is specific endowment or subordinate of the main math. Each math is governed by its own usage and Sampardayams. No two maths can be held to be governed by the same set of usages and Sampardayams unless one is specific endowment or subordinate of the main math. Though several maths may propagate the same religious philosophy, each math will have its own distinct and different usage or Sampardayams. Even a math propagating the tenets of religious philosophy of Adishankracharya are having different Sampardayams. Similarly, each math following and propagating the dwaita philosophy of Madhwacharya will have its own Sampardayam. Maths propagating Vashisthadwaita philosophy of Shriramanujacharya have their own Sampardayams. Therefore, the Act attempting to regulate nomination of a mathadhipati at the recommendation of other mathadhipatis and its acceptance by the Commissioner, or filing up similarly of temporary vacancies in the office of mathadhipati, are but naked interference with religious tenets of Hindu religion. 4. The Act does not provide any guidelines for things to be doe in Chapter V of the Act. The rules made by subordinate legislation cannot independently provide guidelines when the Act is silent as to the essential guidelines. In such a situation, the Act itself is unconstitutional for excessive delegation and provisions of Section 53(2)(a) to (d) are not matters on which any secular authority is competent to decide as to whether the Commissioner will recognise a person nominated as Mahant who could have other qualifications like Acharya, Anusthana, Niyama, Bhakti etc. The best person to adjudge the requisite qualifications is the religious head himself or the disciples of such particular math or denomination and not by any other secular authority not even religious head of another math. Religion being a matter of particular faith, the persons having faith of particular denomination is to decide as to who will be their mathadhipati and to whom they will be disciples. It is not for the secular judgment or any other authority or even by making rules or even making provisions for testing his knowledge of Hindu religion, scriptures, Sampardayams etc. with the help to persons without such knowledge. In fact, in a math a celebate appointed as mathadhipati would lead the life of a celebate. He may be nominated at any age, say at even the age of 7 years. He would learn scriptures in a traditional way in the math itself. with the help to persons without such knowledge. In fact, in a math a celebate appointed as mathadhipati would lead the life of a celebate. He may be nominated at any age, say at even the age of 7 years. He would learn scriptures in a traditional way in the math itself. A test to be conducted by Pandits to permit him to be appointed by a secular authority as the mathadhipati is incongruous or repugnant to the Sampardayam. A mathadhipati can be removed only on grounds which are secular in nature like some of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 51(1)(i). A secular authority cannot exercise any power at any stage of appointment to a religious office. A mathadhipati cannot be removed by secular authority except for secular reasons which must be just, fair and reasonable relatable to one or other of the grounds mentioned in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The question of approval or disapproval of a nomination of a mathadhipati or removal of him on the ground of not having knowledge of the scriptures etc., would amount to interference with the religion. The direction to maintain regular accounts of receipts of Padakanukas would be an interference with religious duties ; and so, it is unconstitutional, though such a provision for Padakanukas offered to him as head of the math may be valid; but to the extent of Padakanukas given as gifts personal to the mathadhipati, the sections are violative of Article 25(1). 5. He further contends that by operation of Section 48, the applicability of Section 29, which relates to appointment and continuance of executive officers, also stands applied to the maths by which the Act interferes with Mahant s right to manage the math.The power to frame the scheme under Section 55 is given to the Commissioner and he appoints the executive officer to manage the math, which is also an interference with the management of the math, which act is inherent in the office of the mathadhipati as head of the instituttion. The provision for transfer of the office holders and servants of the math provided in Section 39 is unconstitutional. Most of the employees of the maths may be disciples themselves ; their appointment, removal, dismissal etc. being matters of administration by the mathadhipati for due management of the math, interference by Commissioner in that behalf is also ultra vires Article 25. Most of the employees of the maths may be disciples themselves ; their appointment, removal, dismissal etc. being matters of administration by the mathadhipati for due management of the math, interference by Commissioner in that behalf is also ultra vires Article 25. 6. Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the State, resisted these contentions. He conceded that though the definition of a trustee in Section 2(29) includes mathadhipati insofar as his right to administer and manage the properties of the math are concerned,. the Act does not impinge upon his right as a spiritual head of math. The abolition of hereditary rights by Section 16 does not include the right of mathadhipati. Mathadhipati in most cases is nominated by his predecessor. Mathadhipati is a sanyasi who has renounced worldly affairs and has severed his ties with natural family. Therefore, there is no scope for hereditary succession to the office of a mathadhipati. The hereditary trustee defened under Section 2(16) and abolished by Section 16 does not, therefore, include mathadhipati. The concept of hereditary trustee defined in the predecessor Act 17 of 1966 is the same as in the Act. Section 16, therefore, has no application to a mathadhipati. 7. Qualifications and disqualifications of a mathadhipati have been separately set out in Sections 53(2) and 51(1) respectively in Chapter V, which deals with maths. The qualifications or disqualifications for a trustee mentioned in Sections 18 and 19 do not apply to a Mahant. Equally, Section 20 deals with constitution of board of trustees and its Chairmanship which do not apply to a mathadhipati since mathadhipati is a single person. Section 22 has no application, since Section 51 deals with filling up of temporary vacancies of mathadhipati and Section 53 deals with filling up of permanent vacancy in the office of mathadhipati. Equally, Section 25 is not applicable a math since Section 49 occupies the field for fixation of dittam for the math. Section 28 does not apply to mathadhipati, which has been separately dealt with in Chapter V. All the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act regulate proper management and administration of the math and the receipt of income, manner of use and accountability of the Padkanukas to Mahant and the math. Section 48, therefore, makes explicit what is implicit in other provisions of the Act. Section 48, therefore, makes explicit what is implicit in other provisions of the Act. Recognition of nomination of mathadhipati [spiritual head] by the Commissioner under Section 53 was made a condition precedent for succession to the office of the mathadhipati only to ensure that a person possessed of the qualifications prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 53, and one who does not suffer from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 51, alone would succeed to the office of mathadhipati. The object is to prevent future litigation to the succession to the office. It was enacted to avoid indelible effect on the administration of the math properties and to safeguard the interests of the math which otherwise adversely gets affected due to protracted litigation for years. Power has been conferred on the Commissioner who is the head of the Endowment Department and a high-ranking Officer with vast administration experience. The law presumes that he would reasonably exercise all the powers to grant permission. It would imply that the Commissioner would call in aid necessary or consequential powers usually implied and necessary to the proper exercise of the power and performance of the duties to effectuate the purpose and the object of the regulation. Therefore, it would be necessary that the Commissioner should have implied powers. In cases where the Commissioner feels that the nomination of the successor requires examination, the obligation to consult a Mahant of a similar math is cast on him; that too with a mathadhipati of other maths having the same Sampardayams. An agama shastra pandit working in the office of the Commissioner, Endowment Department, advises the Commissioner in the matters of religion including usages, customs or Sampardayams observed by a religious institution. Rules, viz., Agama Shastra Pandit Service Rules, 1987 (for short, "Pandit Rules") made in that behalf provide guidance. If no objection to the nomination of a mathadhipati is raised by any person, or where the Commissioner does not have any other adverse material, or where the nominee does not suffer from any disqualification, he does not withhold permission for succession as a mathadhipati. Only when objections are raised by any interested person or even by a disciple or the Commissioner has adverse material, he would seek clarification or information from the nominee or the mathadhipati or both and then take a decision. Only when objections are raised by any interested person or even by a disciple or the Commissioner has adverse material, he would seek clarification or information from the nominee or the mathadhipati or both and then take a decision. Rule 5 of the Pandit Rules provides necessary guidelines in that behalf. The Commissioner is not expected to exercise his powers under Section 53(1) arbitrarily or unreasonably. If he so does in an individual case, the correctness thereof may be quashed in an appropriate proceeding, according to the prescribed procedure. 8. The power to supervise and safeguard the interests of the maths is a secular function which has by law been entrusted to the Commissioner. In a given case, if he exercises the power in a manner objectionable to the incumbent the same would be amenable to correction in an appropriate forum. The law conferring such a power cannot be faulted. The provisions in Sections 52, 53, 54 and the Rules made thereunder would provide sufficient guidelines which postulate an enquiry. The administration of mathadhipati Rules, 1987 would supplement the provisions in Sections 53 and 54. Justice Challa Kondaiah Commission pointed out misuse and abuse of the office by some mathadhipatis who used math properties as Padakanukas (personal gifts) for their personal gain and siphoned the income for personal luxuries or misused for wine or women etc. The Act only regulates and monitors its utilisation for religious purposes. The Rules give guidance and full freedom to the mathadhipati for use of offerings personally given as Padakanukas to him for religious purpose and for his maintenance, consistent with his status according to Sampardayams or usage or custom of the said math. The Commissioner is invested with the power only for secular purpose specified in the Section. It does not amount to interference with the rights of the mathadhipati as spiritual head sanctioned by usage or custom nor does it tend to lower his position as spiritual head of the institution. The saving provisions contained in Section 91 of the Act make the matter more clear. The apprehension that the powers conferred on the Commissioner may be misused or abused is unfounded. Even if it has so happened, the provisions cannot be struck down or declared invalid on that apprehended premise. 9. There is no time limit fixed for nomination of a successor. The apprehension that the powers conferred on the Commissioner may be misused or abused is unfounded. Even if it has so happened, the provisions cannot be struck down or declared invalid on that apprehended premise. 9. There is no time limit fixed for nomination of a successor. The time limit mentioned in Section 54 (1) in only for intimation of the nomination by the mathadhipati to the Commissioner. 90 days time given thereunder is a fairly long period for such an intimation and it is a reasonable period. It would enable the Commissioner to consider all relevant aspects and to takde a decision on his granting permission for recognition of the mathadhipati. 10. Section 54(2) governs the case of nomination by previous mathadhipati and when a mathadhipati is not available to nominate his successor, a meeting of the mathadhipatis of other maths and the disciples of the math to decide the question of successor would arise. Rule 8 of Mathadhipati Rules is relatable to Section 54(2). Rules 3(2) (iii) of the Rules, though speaks of minor givng consent, should be understood reasonably. A consent by a minor would mean a consent of a guardian on behalf of the minor know under HIndu Minority and guardianship Act. 1956 or propewrty guardian apointed by a competent court. Section 52 confers. therefore, only limited power to meet one of the contingencies enumerated thaein, viz., occurrence of a temporary vacancy or existence odf a dispute regarding sucdessor or successor being a minor without there being a fit or suitable person to act on his behalf. In such contingencies the claim of disciples, if any, would be duly taken into consideration. The provisions in Section 52, therefore, are not inc\valid Section 47 of 1966 Act is similar to Section 52 of the Act which has already been unheld by this Court. The executive officer is appointed under Section 55 ; that too, when the Commissioner is satisfied from the reports submitted to him that the properties of the math are mismanaged or misappropriate of that the Mahant grossly neglectedc his power as the mathadhipati. The scheme framed would be subject to appeal. It would be framed only after making an enquiry. It is a sacular act. 11. The scheme framed would be subject to appeal. It would be framed only after making an enquiry. It is a sacular act. 11. Section 45 of the predecessor Act of 1966 did not require the mathadhipati to maintain regualr accounts of receipts of personal gifts or other gifts made to the mathadhipati as head of the math, He was allowed to spenmd at his discretion for any purpose which is not immoral or illegal. Ass the Commission, after equiry, found that corrupt practies were devised to siphon off the funds of the math as Padakanukas, i.e., personal gifts or the same are utuilised for leading luxurious, immoral or extravagant way of life, the Comisioner has been empowered to direct the mathadhiapati to render accounts of the gifts received by mathadhipatis. The provision, therefore, was amde only for accountability of the receipts of such gifts by the mathadhipatis. In view of the admission that the gifts made to the mathadhipati for the math are accountable, the Mahant is liable to account for the same. The personal, gifts also would be required to be accounted only to the extent of their receipt and not how they are spent by him; he has full freedom to spend for religious purposes etc. After deletion of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 from part III of the Constitution by 44th Constitution (Amwendment) Act, the law laid down by this Court that the mathadhipati had the fundametal right to property no longer is available to him. Therefore. he is required to maintain regulat acounts of the receipt of Pasakanukas or other personal gifts and spend the same at his discretion for purposes connected with the objects of the math and propagation of the Hindu dharma. The Act only regulates secular activities of the mathadhipati in spending the Padakanukas and that too in his own interest. Therefore, the regulation. It does not amount to interference with the religious functions of the mathadhipati as head of the math. Since no rules regarding the transfer of the employees of the maths.have been made, the question of vires need not bne gone into. If and when rules are made the question whehter they are consistent with the scheme needs to be gone into at that time. Therefore, the argument in that behalf is only of academic interest. Sections 50 to 55 of the Act read as under : "50. If and when rules are made the question whehter they are consistent with the scheme needs to be gone into at that time. Therefore, the argument in that behalf is only of academic interest. Sections 50 to 55 of the Act read as under : "50. Padakanukas and other gifts :- (1) The mathaadhipati shall maintain regular accounts of receipts of padakanukas or other personal gifts of property made to him as the head of the Math he shall be entitled to spend. at his discretion for the purpose which is conected with the objects of the math and propagation of Hindu Dharma. (2) Any padakanuka or other personal gift which remains undisposed of during the life time of the mathadhipati shall devolve on the math as its assets. (3) In the case of gifts of property or monay made to the mathadhipati not as personal gifts bnut as gift intended for the benefit of the math, the Mathadhipati, shall keep accounts of all receipts and disbursements of such gifts and shall cauise such accounts to be produced before the Comissioner or any person authorised by him in this behalf whenever so required. Explanation :- Any gift of property or money made to that mathadhipati shall, unlass it is spacifed by the donor as padakanuka or personal gift, be presumed to be a gift internded for the benefit of the math : "51. Removal of Mathadhipati :- (1) The Commissioner may suo motu or on an application of two or more persons having interest initiate proceedings for removising mathadhapati or a trustee of a specific endowment attached to math. Removal of Mathadhipati :- (1) The Commissioner may suo motu or on an application of two or more persons having interest initiate proceedings for removising mathadhapati or a trustee of a specific endowment attached to math. (a) is of unsound mind; (b) is suffering from any physical or mental defgeact or infirmity which renders him unfit to tbe a mathadhipati or such trustee ; (c) has ceased to profess the HIndu religion or the tenets of the math; (d) has been sentenced for any offence involving moral turpitude, such sentence not having been reversed ; (e) is quilty of breach of trust, or isappropriation in respect of any of the proparties of the math ; (f) commits persistent and wilful default in the exercise of his powers or performance of his functions under the Act ; (g) violates any of the restriction s imp[osed or practices enjoined by the custom, usage or the tenets of the conduct, swuch as celibacy, renunciation and the like ; (h) leads an immoral life ; or (i) fails or ignores to implement the principles set out in clause (17) of Section 2. (2) The Commissioner shall frame a charge on any of the grounds specified in sub-sexction (1) against the mathadhipati or truatee conserned and give him an opportunity of meeting such charge, of testing the evidnce adducedand to adducing evidence in his favour. After consitering the evidence him, the commissioner may, by order exoberare the mathadhipati or truatee, or remove him. Every such order shall state the charge framed against the mathadhipati or the trustee, his explanation and the finding on such charge together with the reasons therefor ; Proveded that in the case of a math or specific endowment atteched thereto whose annual income exceeds rupees one lakh, the order of removal passed by the Commisskioner against the mathadhipati or trustee shall not take effect unless it is confeirme by the Government. (3) Pending the passing of an order under sub-section (2) ; the commissioner may suspend the mathadhipathi or the trustee ; (4) (a) Any mathadhipathi or trustee aggrieved by an order passed by the commissioner under sub-section (2), may within ninty days from the date of receipt of such order, institute a suit in the court against such order; (b) An appeal shall lie to the High Court within ninty from the date of a decree or oreder of the Court in such suit. 52. Filling of temporary vacncyes in the office of the mathadhipati :- (1) Where a temporary vacancy occurs in the office of the mathadhipati and there is a dispute in regard to the right of succession to such Office, or where the mathadhipati is a minor and has no guardian fit and wiling to act as guardian, or where the mathadhiapti is under suspension under sub-section (3) of Section 51, the Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied after maikng an inquiry in this behalf that anarrangement for the administration of the math and its endowment or of the specific endowment, as the case may be, is necessary, make such arrangement as he thinks fit until the disability of the mathadhipati ceases or another mathadhiapati succeds to the office, as the case may be, (b) In making any suich arrangement, the Commissioner shall have due regard to the claims, if any, of the disciples of the math. (3) Nothing in this sectgion shall be deemed to affect anything in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Court of Wards Act, 1902 and the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350 F. 53. Filinmg ot permanent vacancies of the office of mathadhipati :-(1) Where a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the Mathadhiapati, by reason of death or resignation or on account of his removal under Section 51 or otherwise the person next entitled to succeed according to the rule of succession laid down by the founder, or where no such rule is laid down, according to the usage or custom of the math, or wheter no such usage or custom exists according to the law of succession, for the time being in force, shall with the permission of the Commissioner succed to the office of the Mathadhipathi. "53(2) A person for succession to the office of the mathadhipati under sub-section (1) shall possess the following qualificastions, namely :- (a) basic knowledge of the HinduReligion and philosophy ; (b) Knowledge of the relevant scroptures and sampradaya to which the math belongs ; (c) capacity to imparft the knowledge and preach the tenets of the math to the disciples ; (d) religious temperement with implicit faith in discipline and practice ; and (e) unquestionable moral character. 54. Nomination of mathadhipathi:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 53, a mathadhipathi may nominate his succssoe. The fact of such nomination shall be intimated to the commissioner, eithin ninty days of such nomination nd the Commissioner may recognise such nomination. A nomination shall not be complete unless it is recognised by the commissioner. The conditioons for recognition shal be such as may be prescribed. (2) Where a Mathadhaipati fails to nominate his successor under sub-section (1) or where there is no mathadhipathi, the Commissioner or any officer authorised by him shall after due publication convene a meeting with the mathadhipathis of other disciples of the math recognise the person nominated in such meeting as a mathadhipathi subject to the provisions of this Act. The procedure for convening the meeting and method of publication shall be such as may be prescribed. 55. Powere of Commissioner to frame schemes :- (1) Where the commissioner either suo motu or upon a report submited by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner having jurisediction, ahs reason to believe that the affairs of the math and its properties are being mismanaged, funds are being misappropriated, or tht there is gross neglect of duty on the part of the mathadhipathi he may after makingsuch enquiry as may be prescribed order to frame a scheme of administration, of a math and the specific endowment. (2) A scheme of adminiatration framed under sub-section (1) may contain provision for - (a) appointing or directing the appointment of an Executive Officer. (2) A scheme of adminiatration framed under sub-section (1) may contain provision for - (a) appointing or directing the appointment of an Executive Officer. (b) constituting a committee consisting of not more than five persons for thre purpose of assisting in the whole or any part of the administration of all the endowments of such math or of specific endowment; Provided that the members of such Committee shall be chosen from among such persons having interest in such math or endowment : (c) deteremining the powers and duties of such committee ; and (d) any other relevant matter incidental to the framing of such scheme. (3) Until a scheme is framed under sub-section (1) the Commissioner may appoint a fit person to manage the properties of math and its endowment. (4) The Commissioner, after consulting the mathadhipathi and other persons having interest, and other persons having interest, and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed may by order modify or cancel the scheme settled under sub-section (1). (5) Every order paased by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) shall be published in the manner prescribed. (6) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner passed ewither under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (4), may, within sixthy days from the date of publication of the order, prefer an appeal to the Court." 12. The rival contentions give rise to the question; whether any of the provisions of Sections 50 to 55 in Chapter V of the Act is ultra vires Articles 25. or 26 of the Constitution ? chapter V of the Act deals with maths and specific endowments attached therto. Section 47 defines "mathadhipati" to mean any person wheter known as Mahant or by any other name in whom "the administration and management of a math or specific endowment attached to a math are vested. " In the concept of mathadhipati, both the elements of power to hold property and duty to property maintain it are blended and neither can be detached from thed other. The Mahant, therefore, as the spritual head of the math is entruted with the administration and management of the math or the specific endowment. The personal or beneficial interest of the Mahant in the endowment attached to the math is manifested in his poer of administration and disposal of the property. The Mahant, therefore, as the spritual head of the math is entruted with the administration and management of the math or the specific endowment. The personal or beneficial interest of the Mahant in the endowment attached to the math is manifested in his poer of administration and disposal of the property. His right to adminiter and manage the property endowed to the math and other rights of similat character atre vested in the office of the Mahant and, therefore, theyare legal righta attached to the management and the admionistration of the proparty endowed to the math. He holds the office by custom and usage of the institution. He acts for the benefit of the institution of which he is the head. The Mahant as an aesthetic holds the property and, therefore, it is not hereitabnle like ordinary devolution of the property since he has completely severed all his mundane connections with his natural family ; cut off from the mundane affairs and is ordained to impart religious aducation to this disciples and teaching of the religious scriptures etc. to the folowers of the religion or the sect. Therefore, the ordinary rules of succession to Mahantship do not apply. 13. Article 25. as its language amplifies, assures to ecvery person subject to public order, health and morality, freedom not only to entertain his religious beliefs, as may be approved of by his judgment and conscience, but also to exhibit his belief in such outworldly his ideas for the edification of others. Mahant as head of the spiritual raternity and by viretue of his office has to perform the duties of a recligious teacher. The deep layera of religion used inArticles 25 and 26 its manifest efficacy in ocial well-being and integration in the onward march of civilisation from tribal society to modern life would appropriately be dealt with in the connected cases relating to Archakas. Suffice it too state that it is the duty of Mahant to practise and propagate the religious tenets of which he is an adherent and if any provision of law prevents him from propagating his doctrine that would certainly affect the religious freedom quaranteed under Article 25. Math or a specific endowment per se cannot practise of propagate religion. It can be done only by individual persons. Math or a specific endowment per se cannot practise of propagate religion. It can be done only by individual persons. Whether those persons propagate their personal views or the tenets for twhich the institution was started, is immaterial for the purpose of Article 25. ONly propagation of beliefs is protected, it does not matter whether the propagation takes place in a temple or any other meeting. 14. Chapter V does not per se attempt to regulate the propagation or preaching of the tenents by Mahant or of the math or religious beliefs of which the math is founded or it seeks to propagate. the defenition of the mathahipati for the purpose of the is expressly confined only in relation to the administration and management of a math or specific endowment attached to the math and vesied in his as mathadhipati. Mahant is not a mere manager or custodian of the property. In his office as spiritual head, he has power to dispose of certain properties only for the benefiot of the institution, insur expenditure for the benefit of the insitution, incur expenditure for the math, to carry on religious workship for the disciples and to maintain himself consistent with his office. Though he has undoubted power to apply the funds of the institution, it would always be subject to certain obligations and duties equally governed by customs and usage of the institution. By opereation of Section 48, Sections 18 to 22, 25 zand 28 in Chapter III of the Act shall not apply to the maths or specific endowment attached thereto. Though Section 2(29) defines trustees to include mathadhipati, in the light of Section 47, by juridical metamoraphosis, Mahant is a trustee of the math in relation to the management of the property of the math or the specific endowment atteched to the math. He has to discharge the duties of a trustee and is answerable as such. The definition of "trustee" was used to reiterate the position he holds in general law of trust in relation to maths and in law he is enjoined to hold it as trustee. However, the word trustee does not include his right as a spitual head of the math or to be a hearditary trustee. The definition of "trustee" was used to reiterate the position he holds in general law of trust in relation to maths and in law he is enjoined to hold it as trustee. However, the word trustee does not include his right as a spitual head of the math or to be a hearditary trustee. The definition of "hereditary trustee" under Section 2(16) which was abolished under the Act, therefofre, does not apply nor it includes a Mahant who is spiritual head nominated by his prdecessor mathadhipati or regulated under the Act for the reasons stated by shri rao to which we agree as it is axiomatic that office of mathadhipati is not hereditary or devolved by succession. In most cases it is regulated by nomination by his predecessor under the Act; and in absence of monimation, by consltation with Mahant of similat maths. 15. As seen, Mahant being an asethetic sanyasi, he renounces mundane affirs and totally cuts off his ties with his natural family. In H.H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitabnle Endowments, Mysore1, this Court hasd held at page 312 that "generally a mathadhipati is a sanyasin who has renounced the wordly affairs and severed his ties with his family". Therefore, the question of hereditary succession to the office of mathadhipati does not arise. he is, therfore, neither hereditary trustee nor a trustee in the sence envisaged under Sections 2(29) and 2(16) of the Act respectively. But in juxtaposition, his position as mathadhiapti is of a trustee of the proparty of the math or specific endowment attached to it of which he is the head and holds the property as head of the institution as a trustee with beneficail ejoyment over the math properties for the propagation of the religious tenets and the philosophy applicable to the math or specific endowment and Hindu Dharma. In Kakinada Annadama Samajan etc. v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad & Ors2, this Court has held that mathadhipati is entitled to maintain all the properties of the math or the specific endowment and allowed power to manage or administer the properties endowed to the math or specific endowment. In Kakinada Annadama Samajan etc. v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad & Ors2, this Court has held that mathadhipati is entitled to maintain all the properties of the math or the specific endowment and allowed power to manage or administer the properties endowed to the math or specific endowment. Since Chapter V specifically deals with maths and Mahants, the genedral provisions in Chapter III relate to the administration and management of Hindu charitable and religious institutions and endowments to the extent of inconsistency stand exculed by Section 48 from their operation of maths and specific endowments attached to it. Section 49 relates to fixation of the dittam know as scale of expenditure with which we are not concerned in this case. 16. Section 53 deals with filling up of permanent vacancies in the office of mathadhaipati. It is necessary to emphasise that mathadhiapati as spiritual head of the math, while imparting religious education, blends of the math, while imparting religious education, blends his personal beneficial interest in the properties of the math. The eligibility of succession asw mathadhipati by nomination and his qualification for eligibility are distinct from his power of management of the properties and of due administration of the math. The scope of interference with nomination as Mahant or his qualifications is delicate but bear paramount importance. Evryone interested in the math, predecessor mathadhipati or disciples would be keenly and genuinely interested in due management and administration of math and its propertiws and specific endowments. The Commissioner, when called to deal with recognition or nomination, should keep these facts in forefront. 17. sub-section (1) of Section 53 deals with that question. Evryone interested in the math, predecessor mathadhipati or disciples would be keenly and genuinely interested in due management and administration of math and its propertiws and specific endowments. The Commissioner, when called to deal with recognition or nomination, should keep these facts in forefront. 17. sub-section (1) of Section 53 deals with that question. Where a permanent vacancy occure in the office of mathadhiapti by reason of death or resignation oron account of his removal from office under Section 51 or otherwise, the person next entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant, according to the rules of succession laid down by the founder or where no such rule is laid down, according to thelaw of succession for the time being in force, shall, with the permission of the Commissioner, succeed to the office of mathadhiapti, Sub-section (2) prescribes basic qualifications thus : "53(2) A person for succession to the office of the mathadhipati under sub-section (1) shall possess the folowing qualifications, namely :- (a) basic knowledge of the Hindu religion and philosophy ; (b) knowledge of the relevant scriptures and samoradaya to which the math belongs ; (c) capacity to impart the knowledge and preach the tenets of the math to the disciples ; (d) religiousa temperament with implicit faith in discipline and practice ; and (e) unquestionable moral character." 18. The regulation under sub-section (1) of section 53, viz., permission of the commissioner for the succession to the office of the mathadhipati, is only to ensure that a person who possesses the qualifications prescribed in sub-secgtion (2) and the nominee does not suffer from any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 51(1) and such person alone wouls succeed to the office. Sri Parasaran is right in his emphasis that a disciple would learn from childhood religious education under the guidance of the spiritual head or any other suitable quide. The broad guidelines in Section 53(2) are illustratice as bridges top make a more mature sanyasi with profound knowledge in religion. In this perspective, it is pertinent to quote sub-section (1) of Section 51 which reads thus : "51. Removal of Mahathadhaopati:- (1) The commissiioner may suo motu or on an application of two or more persons having interest initiate proceedings for removing a mathadhipati or a trustee of a specific endowment attached to a math, itf he. In this perspective, it is pertinent to quote sub-section (1) of Section 51 which reads thus : "51. Removal of Mahathadhaopati:- (1) The commissiioner may suo motu or on an application of two or more persons having interest initiate proceedings for removing a mathadhipati or a trustee of a specific endowment attached to a math, itf he. (a) is of unsound mind ; (b) is suffering fron any physical or mental defect or infirmity which renders his unfit to be a mathadhipati or such trustee ; (c) has ceased to profess the Hindu religion or the tenets of the math; (d) has been sentenced for any offence involving moral turpitude, such sentance not having been reversed ; (e) is guilty of breach of trust, or is appropriation in respect of any of the properties of the math ; (f) commits persistent and wilful default in the exercise of his powers or performance of his functions under the Act ; (g) violates any of the restrictions imposed or practices enjoined by the custom, usage or the tenets of the math, in relation to his personal condut, such as celibacy, renunciation and the like ; (h) leads an immoral life; or (i) fails or ignores to implement the principle set out in clause (17) of Section 2." 19. The Commissioner is empowered to remove a Mathadhipati either on an application of two or more prsons having interest in the proper management or administration of the math or suo motu. It is, to reiterate, that bny the exemplary conduct, character, piety, erudition and dedication, the spiritual head inspires faith in the people and as its part properly manages the math and efficific endowment attached to the math. Mathadhipati of Sri Raghavendra Swamy math imspires reverence and exactes respect. The problem of removal arises when the Mahant by his conduct and acts, falls astray from the path of piety and indulges in acts uncalled for from a sanyasi and commits misfeasance and malfeasance, defalcation, misappropriation, falsification of accounts etc. The commissioner would be entitled to initiate proceedings and remove a mathadhaipati or a trustee of a specific endowment on his stisfying any one or all the conditions enumerated in clauses (d) to (i) or on incurring disqualifications enumerated in clauses (a) to (c). He is libnle to action under Section 51 (1). 20. The commissioner would be entitled to initiate proceedings and remove a mathadhaipati or a trustee of a specific endowment on his stisfying any one or all the conditions enumerated in clauses (d) to (i) or on incurring disqualifications enumerated in clauses (a) to (c). He is libnle to action under Section 51 (1). 20. In Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassji Varu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.3, the appellant mathadhipati of Sri Swami Hathiramji Math, Tirupati-Thirumala, was suspended from his office pending enquiry under Section 46(2) of the predecessor Act 17 of 1966. He challenged the constitutionality of Sections 46 and 47 as violative of Article 14, 25(1), 26(b) and (d) of the Constitution. After considering the vires of those provisions, this Court had held that while the Mahant was entitled to enjoiy larger powers for the benefit of the ind\stitution of which he is the head, he is under an obligation to maintain the dignity of his Mahant cannot incur expenditure for personal luxury or objects incongrous with his position as a Mahant. The validity of Section 46, therefore, was upheld. If a Mahant is ofupsound mind or suffers from any physical or mental defect or infirmity or has ceased to profess Hindu religion or the tenets of the math or i fhis case falls within any of clauses (d) to (h) of Secftion 46(1), his removal would be in the interest of the general public. A mathadhipati cannot possibly perform his duties either as a spiritual or a temporal head nor can he properly adminster or manage the trust if he falls within the categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) or has been guilty of breach of trust or wilful default etc. or leads an immoral life [vide clauses (e) to (h0 of Section 46(1)]. The validity of Section 46(1), therefore, was upheld. The same are the provisions in Section 51(1) and, therefore, their validity is no longer res integra. 21. The suspension of a mathadhipati, during inquiry, is a necessary and reasonable part of the procedure which has been prescribed by Section 46 of predecessor Act of 1966. If he is allowed to function druring the pendency of an inquiry the entiry purpose of the enquiry must be defeated. 21. The suspension of a mathadhipati, during inquiry, is a necessary and reasonable part of the procedure which has been prescribed by Section 46 of predecessor Act of 1966. If he is allowed to function druring the pendency of an inquiry the entiry purpose of the enquiry must be defeated. the mathadhiapti may, during enquiry, do away with most of the evidence or temper with the books of accounts or otherwise commit act of misappropriction and defelcation in respect of the properties of the math. It is essential, therefore, in these circumstances, to make a provision for suspending his till the enquiry concludes and an order is made either exonerating or directing his removal. The action under Sections 46 and 47 does not infringe Article 25(1) or 26 (b) or (d). 22. By operation of sub-section (2) of Section 53, thje qualifications for a mahant are prescribed. If a Mahant has already been removed, if self-same person is nominated as a mathadhipati under Section 51(2), it would be obvious that the Commissioner cannot recognise such a nomination and grant permission to him as mathadhipati. He would be entitledto call nomination afresh. Obviously, recognition of the Commissioner required under sub-setion (1) of Section 53 only regulates in that behalf, and not when he is duly nominated as per the qualifications prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 53. The provisions, therefore, are intended to avoid meedless affectingue administration and maintenance of the math, to safeguard the interest of the math and due fulfilment of the objects for which the math or specific endowment is created or established. 23. The Commissioner who is the head of the Endowment Department is a high ranking officer with wide administrative experience and is expected to act fairly and reasonably to effectuate the purpose of Chapter V. It can be accepted that such a high rnking officer would call to his aid necessary and incidental or ancillary powers only to give effect to the purpose of the Act. He would act reasonably, objectively and fairly. If he betrays the faith adn acts srbitratily, the indivisual act is amenable to correction in an appropriate proceedings. so, he is not expected to act arbitrarily or at his whim either to accord or refuse permission to the nominated mathadhipati. He would act reasonably, objectively and fairly. If he betrays the faith adn acts srbitratily, the indivisual act is amenable to correction in an appropriate proceedings. so, he is not expected to act arbitrarily or at his whim either to accord or refuse permission to the nominated mathadhipati. If he commits any excess or acts unreasonably, the individual act is liable to be questioned and dealt with appropriately according to law. But for that groundSection 53 cannot be declared ultra vires. 23A. Sub-section (2) of Section 51 provides procedure for removal of the mathadhiapti for one or the other grounds enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 51. Trhe Commissioner shall frame a charge on the proposed grounds enumerated in sub-section (1) and have it served on the Mahant. He should give an opportunity to the erring incumbent of meeting such charge. Opporttunity to adduce evidence in prrof of the charge or in rebuttal thereof, if the Mahant requests, should be given. After considering and testing the evidence adduced and other material beofre him, he shouls arrive at his decision and reasons in support therefo and record finding on each charge whether the charge is proved or disproved. The Commissioner. may by order, exonerate the mathadhipati or a rustee or mau removal him from office. In the case of a math headed by a mathadhipati whose annual income exceeds Rs.1 lakh, the order by removal of mathadhipati or trustee shall not take effect unless it is confirned by the Government. The operation of sub-section (3) is only transitory, viz., pending enquiry and passing of the final order sub-section (2), the Commissioner is entitled to temporarily suspend the mathadhipati or the trustee, as the case may be. 24. Validity of similar provision in Section 46 of predecessor Act of 1966 has already been upheld by this Court in Digyarshan Rajendra Ramdassji s case. Under sub-section (4) an aggrivedmathadhipati/trustee has been given right of challenging the order of removal by instituting a suit in the court defined in Section 2(8) within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the order, with a further right of appeal to the High Court, under, with a further right of appeal to the High Court, under sub-section (5), within 90 days from the date of the decree or order of the Court. It would thus be clear that complete procedure and machinery has been provided to the charged Mahant/trustee to disprove the charge and in case of removal from office, he has right of instituting suit and prefering appeal to High Court to have it corrected and legality of the order of removal, tested wioth adequate procedural safequards. Section 51 thus provides a complete machnery for removal of an erring Mahant adjudging him to be not a fit person to remain mathadhipati. The validity of the grounds for removal have already been upheld in Ramdassji s case. 25. Section 52 operates for filing up of temporary vacancies in the office of mathadhipati. Sub-section (1) thereof enumerates the circumstances in which the office of mathadhipati temporarily falls vacant, viz., where a dispute exists of the right to succession to the office of Mahant or where the Mahant is a minor and has no quardian fit and willing to act as guardian or where the mathadhipati is under suspension under sub-section (3) of Section 51. On the existence of any of the three grounds, the Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied, after making enquiry in this behalf. that arrangement for administration of the math or the specific endowment, as the case may be, is necessary and after satifying himslef as to such necessaty, makes such arrangements as he thinks fit until the disability of the mathadhipati ceases or other mathadhiapti secceeds to the office, as the case may be. The satisfaction reached by the Commission would be on consideration of the material and other relevant attending circumstances. Sub-section (2) enjoins that the Commissioner, in making interim arrangement for filling up temporary vacancy, shall have due regard to the claims, if any, by the disciples of the math. In other words, the Commissioner is enjoined to make arrangements to fill up the temporary vacancy as an intrim measure. He shall endeavour to give due regard to the claims of any of the disciples of the math for management of the math as temporary mathadhipati until the disability of the mathadhipati ceases or another mathadhipati duly secceeds to the office, as the case may be. He shall endeavour to give due regard to the claims of any of the disciples of the math for management of the math as temporary mathadhipati until the disability of the mathadhipati ceases or another mathadhipati duly secceeds to the office, as the case may be. In the case of filling up of the vacancies when the mathadhipati nominated is a minor, sub-section (3) makes available the remedy under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Court of Wards Act, 1902 or Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Court of Warda Act, 1350F, as the case may be, to appoint property or personal guardian under the respective Acts applicable to the place where the math is situated, for appointment of a fit person as guardian to the ward/minor sanyasi mathadhipati toadminister the math and the properties attached to the math or specific endowment attached thereto. The appointment of guardian under Court of works Act as personal and property guardian would be for due adminisrtration of the math and for beneficial enjoiyment, the Mahant has in the property or guardian under Hindu Guardianship and Maintenance Act, 1956 as and when it become applicable. 26. Section 54 deals with nomination of the mathadhipati. Shri Parasaran, learned senior counsel while addressing his arguments which need no repetition, raised a very strong objection and fervently, repeatedly, forcibly and persuasively argued that the secular authority should not be permitted to interpose in the nomination of Mahant by Act of acceptance of the nominated mathadhipati on diverse grounds mentioned hereinbefore. Having our due careful and very anxious consideration to his arguments and equalty palatable contentions of Shri P.P.Rao, we find that role of the commissioner in that behalf is minimal. It is seen that by operation of sub-section (1) with a non-obstante clause, viz., "subjmect to provision of Section 53", the basic qualifications requied for a person to be nominted as Mahadhipathi are enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 53. The approach to this problem, which has to be kept in view by the commissioner, has already been stated and bears no repetition. The Manhant may himself nominate his successor. In other words, the predecessor Mahant should keep the prohibited grounds enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 53 (2) before he nominates the successor. He is the best person to adjudge among his disciples or anu other persons, the most fitting person eminently suited to succed him. The Manhant may himself nominate his successor. In other words, the predecessor Mahant should keep the prohibited grounds enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 53 (2) before he nominates the successor. He is the best person to adjudge among his disciples or anu other persons, the most fitting person eminently suited to succed him. He would be actuated solely with religious fervour anf capacity of hi successor to properly and efficiently manage the trust, to elongate the object and purpose of the math according to the established traditions, usage, customs and Sampardayams. He is enjoined, after due deliberation,to decide his successor and to intimate such nomination to the commissioner within 90 days. The Comissioner is further required to recognise such nomination. Nomination ipso facto cannot be recognised by the commissioner. 27. In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Srki Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiaar of Sri Shirur Math4 which is locus classic, this couirt had held that "(h)aving regard to the fact that the mathadhipati occupies the position of a trrustee wkith regard to the math, which is a public institution, some amount of control or supervision over the due administration of the endowments and the appropriation of their funds is certainly necessary in the interest of the public and we do not think that the provision of this section by itself offends any funsamental right of the Mahant. We do not agree with the High Court that the result of this provision would be to reduce the Mahant to the position of a servant. No doubt, the commisioner is invested with powers to pass orders, but orders can be passed only for the purpose specified in the section and not for interference with the rights of the Mahant as are sanctioned nby usage or for lowering his position as the spritual head of the institution. The saving proviion contained in Section 91 of the Act makes the position quite clear. An apprehenssion that the powers conferred by this section may be abused in individual cases does not make the provision itself bad or invalid in law". The ratio with equiforce is applicable to the context in which we are called upon to test the validity of the provision. 28. An apprehenssion that the powers conferred by this section may be abused in individual cases does not make the provision itself bad or invalid in law". The ratio with equiforce is applicable to the context in which we are called upon to test the validity of the provision. 28. In this behalf, the Commissioner is guided by Pandit Rules under which the duly competent person assists him in convening the meeting of Mahants having similar Sampardays for nomination of a mathadhipati. He is required to recognise the nomination of Mahant. We find that the suitable procedure has been mede in g.O. M.S. No. 218 Revenue dated March 17, 1988 know as Administration of Math Rules, 1987 (for short. "Math Rules"). Proviso to clause (v0 of sub-rule [1] of rule 3 and proviso to clause (v) of sub-rule [2] of rule 3 by way of amendment have been placed before us with an affidavit if Shri N.Narasimha Rao, Additional Commissioner, Endowment Department who was duly authorised to swear the affidavit in that behalf. 29. The above provisos intend to operate thus ; Proviso undeer clause (v) of sub-Rule [1] of rule 3 ; "Provided that the Commissioner shall consult and ontain the opinion of eminent persons in the field of religion and philosophy and Sampradaya to which the math belongs to satisty hmself that the nominee possesses the prescribed qualification." Proviso under clause (v0 of suib-Rule [2] of rule 3 : "Provided that it shall not be competent to the commissioner to refese recognition of the nomination or permission of succeeed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Mathadhipati and the nominee or the successor as the case may be." 30. It would thus be seen that the Commissioner shall consult and obtain the opinion of eminent perons in the field of religion, philosophy and Sampardaya to which the math belongs to satisfy himself that the nominee possessed the prescribed qualifications under sub-section (2) of Section 53 and is not disqualified under Secrion 51(2) and would take a dcision before granting recognition. In case he would choose to refuse recognition to the nomination, the Commissioner should give an opportunity of being heard to the Mahant and the nominee giving the grounds on which he proposesto refuse recognition and consider the same. it would be obios that he should record reasons fro refusal. In case he would choose to refuse recognition to the nomination, the Commissioner should give an opportunity of being heard to the Mahant and the nominee giving the grounds on which he proposesto refuse recognition and consider the same. it would be obios that he should record reasons fro refusal. In other words, what is required is that the commissioner should test the nomination but not interpose with the nomination, nor interdict a duly qualified person as mathadhipati. The rtole of the Commissioner in that behalf, therefore, is only in the natuere of an intervener in the nomination duly testing whether the nominted person is a fir person to hold the office of Mahant and to manage and administer the amth according to the tents, Sampardayams, usage, customs and philisophy of the math and the properties attached to it. 31. Teh power of the commissioner to frame a scheme under Section 53 of the Act is not absolute but is conditgioned upon reasonable bel;ief on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the math or suo motu; but in later event he should have marial on record for entertaining a reasonable are being the affairs of the math and its properties are being mismanaged or that funds are misappropriated or that the mathadhipati grossly neglected in perfirming his duties. Prior enquiry in that behalf is duly madein accordance with the rules prescribed thereunder. The enquiry would include an opportunity to the mathadhipati to satisfy the Commissioner that the report or the material , the foundation for the formetion of adverse opinion against the Mahant, is not well founded or does not exist. After holding such an enquiry and recording the fining in that behalf as is impled in sun-section (1), the commissioner is required to frame a scheme to administer and manage the properties attaches to the math or specific endowment. IN the scheme so framed, he is required [a] to appointan executive officer for day to day administration of the properties; and [b] to constitute a committee consisting of not more than five persons for the purpose of assisting him in the administration of the math as a whjole or any part of the administration of all the endowments of such math or specific endowments. Under the proviso to sub-section (2) (b) the members of such committee so chosen shall be among the persons haviong interst in such math or endowment". In other words, the members of the committee will be persons who are genuinely interested in the proper management of the math, management of the properties and useful utilisation of the funds for the purpose for which the math or specific endowment is created. the paramount consideration is only proper management of the math and utilisation of the funds for the purpose of the math as per its customs. usage, Sampardayams and philosophy and not the self-benefit of persons interventing in the management of the math. 32. It would appear that the executive officer appointed should be in charge of day to day management of the math or the specific endowment attached to thge math and the committee consituted would be of supervisory mechanism as over all in-charge of the math. Until the scheme is so framed, by operation of sub-section (3), the Commisioner may appoint a fit person to manage the properties of the math and its endowments. After consulting the mathadhipati and other persons having interest and after making such enquiry in the prescribed manner, by operation of sub-section (4), the Comissioner may, by order, modify or cancel the scheme framed under sub-section (1). Every order made either under sub-section (1) or subsection (4) shall be published manner. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner passed under sub-section (1) or (4), may, within 60 days from the date of publication of the order, prefer an appeal to the court. the order of the court by implication would be final. 33. It is true that it is the civil court, under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure code, which frames the scheme. Instead, the legislature has entrusted that power to thr Commissioner. The legislature in its wisdom felt it expedient to invest the said power with necessary limitations in the Commissioner with a right of appeal to an established court defined in Section 2 (8) of the Act. This Court in catena of cases had upheld the scheme framed by the civil court. The change in the Act is only substitution of the Commissioner to the Court, subject to the limitations prescribed before and after making the scheme. This Court in catena of cases had upheld the scheme framed by the civil court. The change in the Act is only substitution of the Commissioner to the Court, subject to the limitations prescribed before and after making the scheme. Thus a scheme framed by the Commissioner is subject to right of appeal to the established court which would duly take care and correct any misapplication or non-application of the settled rules or principles in framing the scheme and could remedy may also be specific either in the original scheme or one upheld with modification, if any, in appeal. 34. The object of Section 55 appears to be to remedy mismanagement of the math or misutilisation of the funds of the math or neglect in its management. The scheme envisages modiication or its cancellation thereof, which would indicate that the schme is of a temporary nature and duration till the evil, which was recorded by the Commissioner ofter due enquiry, is remedied or fit person is nominated as mathadhipati and is recognised by the Commissioner. The scheme is required to be cancelled as soon as the nominated mathadhipati assumes office and startes administering the math and manages the properties blonging to, endowed or zattached to the math or specific endowment. 35. The next question is : is whether Section 50 of the Act interceres with religion and, therefore, violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution ? It is seen that the right to administer the math according to the tenets, philosophy, customs, usage and Sampardaya would include right to manage the properties and utilisation of the funds thereof for their due fulfilment. Section 50 divides Padakanukas into two parts, i.e., giftsd personal to Mahant and to the math as such but given to him as being spiritual head. Sub-section (1) provides that the receipts of Padakankas, viz., gifts offered as personal to the Mahant or other personal gifts of properties made to him as head of the math. IN other word, he is required to account for the receipts of personal gifts. As head of the math he is entitled to utilise the funds at his discretion for any purposes connected with the objects of the math and propagation of HIndu dharma. IN other word, he is required to account for the receipts of personal gifts. As head of the math he is entitled to utilise the funds at his discretion for any purposes connected with the objects of the math and propagation of HIndu dharma. The latter part indicates that after he renders accounts of their receipt, he is free to utilise anmd spend the gifts so received by him for any legitimate purpose which is connected with the objects of the math and for propagation of Hindu dharma. Since the latter part is integratedly connected with his status as Mahant, it does not interpose or control his power to exercise hisdiscretion. The obligation fastened on him is only to maintain regular accounts of receipts of personal gifts or other personal gifts of properties made personally to him as head of the math. As rightly conceded by Shri Parasaran, any such Padakanukas or other personal gifts which remain undisposed of during the life of the mathadhipati shall develve on the math as its properties by operation of sub-section (2) since the mathadhipati is an aestietic, a sanyasi and it will devolve only on the head of the math as math property. the explanation makes the meaning more clear andunambiguous. Any gift of property or of money made to mathadhipati shall, unless it is specified by the donor as Padakanukas or personal gift, be presumed to be gift intended for the benefit of the math. 36. In H.H. Sudundra Thirtha Swamiar case [supra] relied on by Shri Parasaran, Section 55 of Madras Act, pre-amendment and post-amendment, was considered. It was held at page 315 thus : ".....We deeem it necessary also to state that having regard to the large powers which the Mahant has over the application of the funds not only for the maintenance of the dignity of his office and expenses for the maintencance of the math but also for such purpose religious or charitable as are not inconsistent with the usage and custom of the endowment, application of the funds for personal enjoyment or luxury by the Mathadhipati or for purposes wholly unconnected with the institution, would aloner be covered by the second part of Section 52(1)(f). In our view the provision which authorises the institution of a suit for removal of a Mahant where he is found to have wasted the funds or properties of the institution or has applied such funds or properties for purposes wholly unconnected with the institution does not amount to an inreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of the Mahant in the propety under his management." 37. After noticing the amendment and its effect on the decision in Shirur Math case (supra), in H.H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar case (supra) this Court held thus : “By express enactment the expression ‘pathakanikas’ for the purpose of Section 55 as amended, means gifts of property made to a Mahant as the head of the Math. By that section, the Mahant is required to keep regular accounts of receipts of such gifts and is entitled to spend the same in accordance with the customs and usages of the institution, for such pathakanikas received by the Mahant are gifts to the Mahant as the head of the Math and therefore in truth gifts to the Math. Obligations imposed upon the Mahant to maintain regular accounts of the receipts of pathakanikas of the character defined in Section 55 and to utilise the same in accordance with the customs and usages of the institution cannot be regarded as an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of the Mahant. A Mahant being bound to discharge the duties of a trustee and being answerable as such, a provision requiring him to maintain accounts of such pathakanikas ould conduce to the effective exercise of the control over him and imposing an obligation to spend the same in accordance with the customs and usages of the institution is not inconsistent with his position as mahant even though he has a beneficial interest therein. Section 55 as amended will not apply to patha­kanikas which are proved to be gifts personal to the Mahant. Our attention was invited by counsel for the appellants to cl. (g) of Section 52(1) in which adoption of devices to convert the income of the institution or of the funds or properties thereof into pathakanika is one of the grounds on which a suit for remov­al of a Mahant may life. But the expression ‘Pathakanika’ as used in Section 52(1)(g) appears to have the larger meaning in which that expression is traditionally understood. But the expression ‘Pathakanika’ as used in Section 52(1)(g) appears to have the larger meaning in which that expression is traditionally understood. In the context of Section 52(1)(g), ‘pathakania’ would mean personal gifts to the Mahant. If the Mahanat resorts to devices to convert the income of the institution or the funds of properties thereof into per­sonal gifts made to him that would be improper conduct for which he would be liable to be removed in a suit under Section 52. But under Section 55 the Legislature has expressly restricted the meaning of the expression ‘pathakanika’ by using the words, ‘that is to say, any gift of property made to him as the head of the math’. We are therefore unable to hold that the expression ‘path­akanika’ in Section 55 means personal gifts and the Legislature by enacting that section was attempting to re-enact Section 55 as it originally stood in a different garb.” 38. This Court further held that Padakanukas for the purpose of Section 55, as amended, may not be gifts of property made to a Mahant as head of the math. The Mahant is required to keep regu­lar accounts of receipts of such gifts. He is entitled to spend the same in accordance with the customs of the institution, for such Padaka­nukas received by the Mahant are gifts to the Mahant as head of the mathand, therefore, in truth, gifts to the math. Obliga­tions imposed upon the Mahant to maintain regular accounts of the receipt of the Padakanukas of the character defined under Section 55 and to utilise the same in accordance with the customs and usages of the institution were held valid. 39. The Mahant being bound to discharge the duties of a trustee and being answerable as such, a provision requiring him to main­tain accounts of such Padakanukas would conduce to the effective exercise of control over him and imposing an obligation to spend the same in accordance withthe customs and usages of the institu­tion, is not inconsistent with his position as a Mahant, even though he has beneficial interest therein. 40. If the Mahant resorts to devices to convert the income of the institution or of the funds or properties thereof into personal fits made to him, that would be improper conduct for which he would be liable to be removed in a suit under Section 52. 40. If the Mahant resorts to devices to convert the income of the institution or of the funds or properties thereof into personal fits made to him, that would be improper conduct for which he would be liable to be removed in a suit under Section 52. The legislature by enacting that section did not attempt to re-enact Section 55 to bring the obligation of the Mahant, in a different garb. The same ratio applies to the present case. 41. Sub-section (3) provides that in the case of gifts of proper­ties made to the mathadhipati as personal gifts but gifts intend­ed for the benefit of the math, he is enjoined to maintain ac­counts of all the receipts and disbursement of such gifts and to cause such accouns to be produced before the Commissioner or anyone authorised by him in that behalf whenever so required. Right to manage and administer the math includes right to use any gifts of money made to the math as gift intended for the benefit of the math. In law, he is enjoined as a trustee to account for the properties in his possession and is responsible for due management which is a secular act. It is seen that the report of Justice Challa Kondaiah Commission had collected material that some Mahants had resorted to corrupt practices by diverting the funds of the math as Padakanukas and personal gifts and utilised the same to lead immoral or luxurious life or siphoning the income to the members of natural family to which be belonged or on wine and women. The legislature on consideration thereof felt it expedient to remedy the evil and imposed a duty, which as trustee is enjoined on him. Fastening an obligation on mathadhi­pati to maintain accounts of the receipts of Padakanukas as personal gifts made to the mathadhipati and to see that the funds are properly utilised for the purposes of the math in accordance with its objects and propagation of Hindu dharma does not amount to interference with religion. Fastening an obligation on mathadhi­pati to maintain accounts of the receipts of Padakanukas as personal gifts made to the mathadhipati and to see that the funds are properly utilised for the purposes of the math in accordance with its objects and propagation of Hindu dharma does not amount to interference with religion. Equally, in respect of gifts of properties or money made to the mathadhipati as gifts intended for the benefit of the math, he is bound under law as trustee, even without amendment to the Act, to render accounts for the receipts and disbursement and cause the accounts in that behalf produced from time to time before the Commissioner or any autho­rised person in that behalf, whenever so required is part of administration of properties of the math. Questions relating to administration of properties relating to math or specific endow­ment are not matters of religion under Art. 26(b). They are secular activities though connected with religion enjoined on Mahant. 42. Section 50 of the Act which is corresponding provision in the predecessor Act of 1966 requires the mathadhipati to maintain accounts in the manner prescribed therein which is a secular activity on the part of a mathadhipati. The intervention of the legislature in that behalf is in the interest of the math itself. He is, therefore, enjoined to maintain accounts in the regular course of the administration and maintenance of the math. Opera­tion of Section 50 is, therefore, a permissible statutory inter­vention under Articles 25(2)(a) and 26(b) and (d) of the Consti­tution. 43. It is thus clear that none of Sections 50 to 55 of the Act offends Article 25 or 26 of the Constitution. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. W.P. dismissed.