K RAMA RAO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises under the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act 1927 (hereinafter called 'the Act') . The petitioner is the Manager of Sureshwara Devaru Temple in Thirthahalli Taluk, which is a Muzrai Institution governed by the Act.The first respondent is the State of Mysore; the second respondent is the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments and the third respondent is the Tahsildar and Muzrai Officer, Thirthahalii Taluk. In exercise of the power conferred by S.41(4) of the Act, the former State of Mysore had framed Rules which, inter alia, provided for sanction of scale of expenditure in Muzrai Institutions governed by the Act. In the purported exercise of that power, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 27th September 1966, besides fixing the scale of expenditure for the institution of the petitioner, determined that a sum of Rs.1,978 as payable towards what is termed as 'percentage contribution and reserve amount to the Muzrai Eestablishment Fund. Prior to the said proceedings, the said Institution was paying a sum of Rs. 123 towards 'percentage contribution' and Rs.430 towards reserve fund. Pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent, the third respondent issued a demand notice to the petitioner on 29th December 1967 demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 1,978 alleged to be due for the year 1966-67 and it was stated in the said notice that in the event of default the amount will be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner has challenged the said demand as also the proceedings of the second respondent on the basis of which the said demand was made. The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the third respondent to forbear from enforcing the impugned demand notice (Ext.C') dt /29th December, 1967.

(2.) He has also prayed for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent in so far as it directs the setting apart of a sum of Rs.1,978 towards 'percentage contribution' and 'reserve' to the Muzrai Establishment Fund. It is common ground that there is no provision made in the Act empowering the authorities under the Act, to levy and demand percentage contribution' or 'reserve' to the Muzrai Establishment Fund. The learned High Court Government Advocate submitted that Rule 4 of the Rules empowers the Deputy Commissioners in respect of Minor Institutions and Rule 5 empowers the Commissioner in respect of Major Institutions, to sanction scale of expenditure of such Institutions and that that power comprehends within its ambit the power to fix percentage contribution' and 'reserve' to the Muzrai Establishment Fund. He also submitted that the petitioner and his ancestors had entered into agreements agreeing to pay such contributions and that in accordance with the said agreement payments were made in the earlier years.

(3.) Sub-sec. (4) of S.41 of the Act empowers the State Government to make Rules prescribing the scale of expenditure of the Muzrai Institutions governed by the Act. Sub-rule(7) of Rule 4 states that the Deputy Commissioners as Muzrai Officers shall have power to appoint Dharmadarsis for all minor Institutions and sanction scale of expenditure therein. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 confers similar powers on the Muzraai Commissioner in respect of all Major Muzrai Institutions.