JAGADGURU KARI BASAVA RAJENDRASWAMI OF GOVIMUTT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sri Jagadguru Kari Besava Rajendraswami of Gavi Mutt is the Matadhipati of Sri Gavi Mutt which is a religious institution dedicated to the propagation and promotion of the tenets of the Veara Saiva cult of Hinduism. This Mutt is sitauted at Uravakonda in the District of Anantpur. It appears that on the 6th September, 1939, the Board of Hindu Religious Endowments constituted under the Madras Act II of 1927 (hereinafter called 'the earlier Act') framed a scheme under S. 63 of the said Act for the proper administration of the said Mutt and its endowments. The predecessor-in-office of the appellant then filed suit No. 21 of 1939 on the file of the District Judge Anantapur for getting the said scheme set aside. His suit substantially failed, because the District Court was persuaded to make only a few minor modifications in the scheme subject to which the scheme was confirmed. That decision was taken in appeal by the predecessor of the appellant to the High Court of Madras (A. S. No. 269 of 1945). During the pendency of the said appeal, the appellant's predecessor died, and the appellant then brought himself on the record as the legal preventative of his deceased predecessor. Ultimately, the appeal was withdrawn and, therefore, dismissed.

(2.) Though, a scheme had been formulated by the Board under S. 63 of the said Act, apparently no effective step was taken to take over the actual management of the Mutt and its endowments. The said management continued as before and the fact that an Executive Officer had been appointed under the scheme made no difference to the actual administration of the Mutt. It was on the 5th April, 1952, that the appellant was served with a memorandum asking him to hand over the charge of all the properties of the Mutt to the Executive Officer. A notice issued by the Executive Officer followed on the 16th April, 1952 by which the appellant was informed that the Executive Officer would take over possession. Meanwhile, what is known as the Sirur Mutt case was decided by the Madras High Court and the appellant felt justified in refusing to hand over possession to the Executive Officer on the ground that the scheme under which possession was sought to be taken over from him was invalid inasmuch as it contravened the appellant's fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution which had come into force from the 26th January, 1950.

(3.) In 1951, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951 (hereinafter called the latter Act) repealed and replaced the earlier Act. The appellant moved the Madras High Court on the 28th April, 1952 by his writ petition and prayed for an appropriate writ quashing the notice served on him by the Executive Officer threatening to take over the administration of the Mutt and its properties under the scheme. This petition was heard by a single Judge of the said High Court and was allowed. The learned Judge took the view that some provisions of the scheme contravened the appellant's fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(f), and so, it could not be enforced. It was no doubt urged before the learned Judge that the appellant's writ petition should not be entertained because he had a definite adequate alternative remedy under the latter Act, but this plea was rejected by the learned Judge with the observation that where the fundamental right is clearly infringed, it is the duty of the Court to interfere in favour of the citizen, unless there are reasons of policy which make it inexpedient to do so. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed that the scheme should be quashed. He, however took the precaution to make the observation that his order did not mean that the Government was not free to make a scheme in consonance with the Constitutional rights of the Matadhipati.