Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 647 (KAR)

SHILPI PAPACHAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2002-10-11

R.GURURAJAN

body2002
R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a devotee is before me and is questioning in his personal capacity the order at Annexure-A dated 18-2-2000 passed by the respondent. The facts in brief are as under : the petitioner has allegiance to dhafmadarshi of Papagni Math (for short the Math ). It is a religious institute working for the welfare of Vishwakarma community of Hindu Religion. Vishwakarma community are engaged in the handicrafts of Goldsmith in addition to sculpture and other activities. The Math is in existence over 1000 years, according to the petition averments. There are several idols and Samadhi of the previous Swamijis of their sect. Their main god is Bhoganandhishwara. The diety is worshipped by Vishwakarma devotees. The math did not have religious head like swamiji either for preaching or religious activities. There is no history of Mathadhipathi of this institution. The third respondent, keshavachar belongs to Vishwakarma community. According to the petitioner, he misused his position as Religious Endowments commissioner and got the fifth respondent appointed as the Peethadhipathi of the Math. The petitioner states that the Government cannot appoint any Swamiji and the Government has no power, what so ever. He also makes allegation against the third respondent. It is unnecessary for me to refer to these allegations in the light of an order of this court on 12-6-2000. The third respondent in terms of an order is deleted. The only question that remains for consideration is with regard to the right of the State Government to appoint of Peetadhipathi to a Math. ( 2 ) NOTICE was issued and the respondents have entered appearance. The contesting respondent has filed a detailed affidavit opposing the petition. He states that from time immemorial, several Swamijis were in charge of the Math activities. Yogis and mathadipathis were patronized by all members of Vishwakarma community. Sri veerabhghacharya and Sri Papamambadevl were presiding over the Math, earlier. The petitioner has referred to the history of the math in the petition. The respondent also refers to the appointment of a Committee by the Government in the year 1985. According to the respondent, a Committee was appointed with the Tahsildhar as a Treasurer. The Development Committee, the local public and the devotees held a meeting on 26-6-1999 and passed a resolution with regard to the appointment of peethadyaksha of papagni Math. The respondent also refers to the appointment of a Committee by the Government in the year 1985. According to the respondent, a Committee was appointed with the Tahsildhar as a Treasurer. The Development Committee, the local public and the devotees held a meeting on 26-6-1999 and passed a resolution with regard to the appointment of peethadyaksha of papagni Math. The petitioner was present and he was a party to the resolution of the meeting. Thereafter, the Government has chosen to issue the present order. The State governmnt has not filed any Counter. ( 3 ) HEARD the Counsel. Sri P. Srintvasaiah, learned counsel essentially questions the power of the Government in the matter of appointment. The Counsel says that no powers are vested with the Government in the matter of appointment. He refers to Chapter VIII, Succession of Gurus to Mathas in this regard in terms of the impugned order. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents says that the petitioner is a party to the proceedings and he cannot be permitted to challenge this at this stage. Even otherwise, he states that the Government has recognized and therefore no orders will be passed at this stage. After hearing the Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. The material records reveal of a Committee in terms of Annexure R1 It is dated 19-6-1987. Annexure-R2 is a Resolution passed by the Committee dated 7-8-1999. The petitioners name is found at SI. No. 10. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has made over a Report to the Assistant commissioner and thereafter the impugned order has been passed by the Government. ( 5 ) BEFORE considering the validity of the order, it is necessary to notice the objection of the respondent in this regard in the light of the participation of the petitioner. in support of the same, the respondent relies on annexure R-2. Annexure R-2 is only a Resolution providing for engaging the fifth respondent Swamiji. This Annexure R-2 is the opinion of the devotees with regard to the fifth respondent becoming Swamiji. What is questioned in this petition is with regard to the right of the Government in the matter of appointment of Swamiji. Therefore, annexure R-2 cannot said to be an obstacle for the petitioner. Even otherwise, a mere participation by a devotee does not in any way validate and invalid the order in law. What is questioned in this petition is with regard to the right of the Government in the matter of appointment of Swamiji. Therefore, annexure R-2 cannot said to be an obstacle for the petitioner. Even otherwise, a mere participation by a devotee does not in any way validate and invalid the order in law. This objection is overruled. ( 6 ) LET me see as to whether an order, at annexure-A stands the test of law. Before giving a finding with regard to validity of annexure-A, let me notice the activities of the Math and also the consideration of the appointment of the Mathadipathi as held by courts of law. ( 7 ) IN this connection, it is necessary to notice the existence of Maths. Maths are basically religious Institutions. Their object is maintenance of line of religious teachers for advancement of religion, the religion principles and the worship of their respective god/goddessess. However, the Maths are expected to promote the religious knowledge for spiritual upliftment. Different Maths have got its own primaiy ideals connected with the Math. Some Maths also undertake some charitable job. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 282 has defined the position and powers of the Mathadipathis. A Mathadipathy is not a trustee. In a strict sense, he is the Manager or custodian of the Institution who has to discharge duties of all trustees and answerable for such. But he is not a mere Manager and it would not be right to describe Math as an office. He is the head of a spiritual fraternity and by virtue of his office, he is performing the duties of a religious teacher. The Courts have considered the succession to a head of the Math. The Courts have ruled as per the custom of the particular institution, successor is permissible. ( 9 ) IN AIR 1938 Privy Council 216, the court ruled as under :"succession to the office of Mahanth and the ownership of the Math property, limited by the period of tenure of the office, is to be regulated by the custom of the particular math, and the plaintiff in the suit is bound to allege and prove what the custom of the particular math is and that his acquisition of the Mahantship was in accordance with such custom. " ( 10 ) IN the famous case of Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, in AIR 1980 SC 707 : (1980 all LJ 299) the Supreme Court considered various case laws on the subject and thereafter, the Supreme Court has noticed that"the law is well settled that succession to mahantship of a math or Religious Institution is regulated by custom or usage of the particular institution, except whether a rule of succession is laid down by the" founder himself who created the endowment. " "even where the mahant has the power to appoint his successor, it is the custom in the various maths that such appointment should be confirmed and recognized by the members of the religious fraternity to which the deceased belonged. " ( 11 ) IN the light of the decision, what is clear to me is that in so far as Hindus are concerned as on today, it is the custom and usage that takes a primary role in the matter of appointment of a Mathadipathi. There is no law shown to me providing for appointment of a Mathadipathi by either of the parties. Annexure A Is admittedly issued by the State Government. It is issued on behalf of the State Government. In the preamble, there is a reference to the earlier proceedings. Annexure A refers to Chapter VIII column I (Succession of Gurus to Maths ). It is also necessary to reproduce the entire order at Annexure A. ( 12 ) A reading of Annexure A would show that the Government in terms of Chapter. VIII has chosen to appoint the fifth respondent as a Mathadipathi. Factually Chapter viii provides for succession of Gurus to mathas. It also provides for usage being observed regarding the election of a successor to the deceased Swamiji of a Math. It does not provide for any appointment by the government. In the light of no power available under Chapter VIII and also in the light of no other provision available on record by a Statute, the appointment by the Government is unsustainable. To that extent, the order at Annexure A is set aside. ( 13 ) SRI Patil, learned Counsel, however states that setting aside of appointment should not come in the way of recognition of the swamiji. No arguments are placed before me with regard to any violation of any custom or usage in the community. To that extent, the order at Annexure A is set aside. ( 13 ) SRI Patil, learned Counsel, however states that setting aside of appointment should not come in the way of recognition of the swamiji. No arguments are placed before me with regard to any violation of any custom or usage in the community. No arguments are also advanced before me. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to only set aside the order in so far as appointment of swamiji by the Government is concerned. If the Government has recognized and provided any benefits in terms of the recognition to the Math, the same is to be continued notwithstanding this order. This clarification would meet the arguments of Sri Patil, learned counsel. ( 14 ) IN the result, Annexure A in so far as appointment of the swamiji is concerned is set aside with the clarification. No costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .